DCS Update discussion February 2024

[twistking]

1 hour ago, NineLine said:

Why does it sound bad? And how is it an excuse it's simply a matter of not having the manpower right now to focus much attention on it? For any shortcomings, it might still have It's still my go-to for just simple flights around maps. I have not seen anything with it that would block my enjoyment of the aircraft. [...]

It sounds bad, because it wasn't sold as "special". When i bought it, i assumed it would be developed at a similar pace to other modules. It wasn't and currently aspects of its simulation are definitely not on par with other ED modules.

[golani79]

2 hours ago, NineLine said:

it's simply a matter of not having the manpower right now

Will there ever be?

It went into EA in 2018 ..

[ngreenaway]

love how all the disgruntled yak52 owners come crawling out of the woodwork

 

its pretty much the least complex module produced by ED, watch itll take longer than the hornet to complete

[Raven (Elysian Angel)]

2 hours ago, Hiob said:

People are in deperate need of some vitamine D to brighten up the mood.

Don't forget about Magnesium: it's vital and often overlooked  

[twistking]

12 minutes ago, ngreenaway said:

love how all the disgruntled yak52 owners come crawling out of the woodwork

you made a disgruntled crawler chuckle...

[Silver_Dragon]

45 minutes ago, twistking said:

It sounds bad, because it wasn't sold as "special". When i bought it, i assumed it would be developed at a similar pace to other modules. It wasn't and currently aspects of its simulation are definitely not on par with other ED modules.

The develop videos show that module was based on a Private product, autorized to release on DCS World.

[twistking]

45 minutes ago, Silver_Dragon said:

The develop videos show that module was based on a Private product, autorized to release on DCS World.

so what?

Edited April 4, 2024 by twistking

[schurem]

1 hour ago, ngreenaway said:

all the disgruntled yak52 owners

But what about the ones that are quite gruntled?

[Hotdognz]

Man the excuses that are being posted about the lack of available manpower for the small Yak issues that need fixing are very telling.

I purchased it using the same decision as I purchased the F18, F16, SC, and many more ED module, that I would get a complete and working module at some point, at this point its still EA and the F16 isn't, which is more complex.

I don't care if it was a private product released to us, I don't care if you don't have enough manpower to fix it, that's not my issue that's your issue as a company, you took on the project, you sold it with features and into the DCS eco system, your still selling it, you should complete it or at least fix bugs that have been listed and not fixed for years.

Stop working on the F6F/E for 3 months and fix the Yak, we don't have that plane yet so its made you no money, wont harm anyone to wait another 3 months for a plane not released.

At this stage I,m regretting my pre purchase of the Afghan map and really will consider all my purchases of ED modules in the future seeing how the community mangers engage with long term customers when asked about certain products.

[SlipHavoc]

There's also the business question of how many dev hours to devote to a module that probably has only a very tiny fraction of the number of sales compared to the main modules.  Companies don't stay in business for over 30 years in an extremely niche market by making poor decisions along those lines.

[Hotdognz]

There's also the business question of how many dev hours to devote to a module that probably has only a very tiny fraction of the number of sales compared to the main modules.  Companies don't stay in business for over 30 years in an extremely niche market by making poor decisions along those lines.

Wouldn't the business decision to make the module in the first place ,mean your committed to completing it and that in itself is a commitment to your customers who purchase it, this goes for any module

Sent from my CPH2333 using Tapatalk

[SlipHavoc]

12 minutes ago, Hotdognz said:

Wouldn't the business decision to make the module in the first place ,mean your committed to completing it and that in itself is a commitment to your customers who purchase it, this goes for any module

Sent from my CPH2333 using Tapatalk
 

Not necessarily.  If completing it is going to be very unprofitable, it may be better to cut your losses and work on other projects.  On the other hand, as your technology gets better, and your developers get more skilled, and your profitable modules keep doing well, you may be able to come back to it at some point and finish it up, and in the meantime, it's still as playable as it always has been.  I do think some kind of public list of implemented and non-implemented features and known bugs would probably help set people's expectations, not sure if that's something that exists for the Yak though.  In general, you should do your research and use the amazingly handy trial system for new modules before buying them, and set your own expectations accordingly.

[virgo47]

While off-topic, I'll chime in about Yak-52 as well... Everybody has their poison. I like flying in Yak-52, and because it's not a fighter, I don't mind the damage model. Yes, it's arcade-like when you crash, and yes, I believe it is not complete - and that's probably one of the reasons why it's in EA. But what I don't understand are the easy things - like why don't we have working toggle bindings (toggles work only as ON), so we have to bind both ON and OFF for most switches? I appreciate it when something gets fixed. I believe ED has to fix more and more because more and more modules will simply force it - or at least deprecate some modules, or clearly say in the shop "We don't have time/manpower for this for any foreseeable future". I'm not long with DCS (if I don't count my short tenure during 2014) and I can see the progress, but even during ~2 years with DCS I've encountered bugs reported for years. Not just watching them for no reason. I returned to TF-51D after the flaps and canopy were fixed after a long time that was hard to understand.

On the other hand, I can always focus on the module that feels good. And I try to do that. But just because something is not game-breaking, it doesn't mean it doesn't stand in the way to some people (arguably it doesn't to others, which is fine for them and I appreciate their attitude as well).

DCS is still fun (or work/life, however you look at it ). It's just sometimes a labor of love or what... (in Slovak we have a metaphor along the lines "life of a monk/being in an order").

BTW: Originally, I got to this thread to see what release cadence can I expect with the single version now... did I understand it right it will be between 1 and 3 months? So... around two?

Edited April 4, 2024 by virgo47

[TEMPEST.114]

8 hours ago, cfrag said:

They are Hotel Sierra pilots, and we are just sad downers that obsess about old stuff. Might as well sign up for Facebook or something.

I think the better analogy would be MySpace.

Perhaps instead of the business model being 'announce new stuff and get pre-orders' there needs to a break from new stuff, and fix/improve/replace/repair the core sim, technologies and already 'out in the wild' modules. Surely with a more stable and better functioning and feature laden base, it will make focusing on the 'new' stuff much easier and quicker.

And on a personal note, stop neglecting the mission editor and the scripting environment; most of what 'customers' complain about is the lack of content in the DCS Sandbox; that is significantly hampered by 25 year old tools and design approaches. 

Just my 2p.

Edited April 4, 2024 by Elphaba

[Beirut]

30 minutes ago, Elphaba said:

Perhaps instead of the business model being 'announce new stuff and get pre-orders' there needs to a break from new stuff, and fix/improve/replace/repair the core sim, . . . 

 

 

We got the new clouds a while back, which is The Best improvement in years I think - and the best clouds in any flightsim -  and there's the multi-threading and DLSS. I did see a sweet jump in my FPS with the multi-threading.

 

It's not all coming around as fast as we might like, but the sim looks great and runs well. And Vulcan is on the way, along with new map and aircraft tech. I'm feeling positive about the whole thing. 

[SlipHavoc]

Also, the mission editor got a huge improvement with the addition of the drawing tools, which helped make servers like Enigma's Cold War possible.

[buceador]

8 hours ago, Elphaba said:

And on a personal note, stop neglecting the mission editor and the scripting environment; most of what 'customers' complain about is the lack of content in the DCS Sandbox; that is significantly hampered by 25 year old tools and design approaches.

+1

[draconus]

12 hours ago, virgo47 said:

BTW: Originally, I got to this thread to see what release cadence can I expect with the single version now... did I understand it right it will be between 1 and 3 months? So... around two?

They try make it around 6 weeks but it can get longer when issues arise.

13 hours ago, Hotdognz said:

at this point its still EA and the F16 isn't, which is more complex

It's the F/A-18C that got out of EA, not F-16C.

13 hours ago, schurem said:

But what about the ones that are quite gruntled?

Shh, you're spoiling our case.

[TEMPEST.114]

12 hours ago, SlipHavoc said:

Also, the mission editor got a huge improvement with the addition of the drawing tools, which helped make servers like Enigma's Cold War possible.

Adding meagre drawing tools is not a 'huge improvement' to the mission editor; all the same limitations, bugs, broken UX and lack of features are still there. Just now you can add low res 2d drawings (and those tools have bugs too). 

I think your ability to be impressed is a little overboard.

12 hours ago, Beirut said:

 

We got the new clouds a while back, which is The Best improvement in years I think - and the best clouds in any flightsim -  and there's the multi-threading and DLSS. I did see a sweet jump in my FPS with the multi-threading.

 

It's not all coming around as fast as we might like, but the sim looks great and runs well. And Vulcan is on the way, along with new map and aircraft tech. I'm feeling positive about the whole thing. 

It's a hardcore military flight sim. Clouds are nice pretty things to look at, but the core sim and it's abilities didn't improve by adding better looking clouds, esp as the enemy AI can STILL see through them - you know, like how tanks and see and shoot you through a dense forest even when flying NOE in an Apache - the sim needs serious work - not just on the pretty stuff.

Lipstick on a pig springs to mind sometimes when people go on and on and on about the 'clouds'. This isn't MSFS. We need more than pretty screenshots. 

[Beirut]

10 minutes ago, Elphaba said:

It's a hardcore military flight sim.

 

Apparently it's a pig with lipstick.

 

10 minutes ago, Elphaba said:

Lipstick on a pig springs to mind sometimes when people go on and on and on about the 'clouds'.

 

I thought it was a hardcore military flightsim?  

[SlipHavoc]

53 minutes ago, Elphaba said:

I think your ability to be impressed is a little overboard.

No, in fact it's the other way around: You cannot seem to recognize or appreciate significant features even when they are explicitly pointed out to you.

[Wyvern]

1 hour ago, Elphaba said:

It's a hardcore military flight sim.

Eh, not really. Its a cockpit simulator, more than its a flight sim.

[giullep]

Questions for Eagle Dynamics | Performance Matt "Wags" Wagner

 

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-DtSJjG61iU

[Beirut]

3 minutes ago, giullep said:

Questions for Eagle Dynamics | Performance Matt "Wags" Wagner

 

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-DtSJjG61iU

 

Comments are turned off. 

[PLUTON]

Gentlemen stop discussing with people who only think that everything is pulverized with their missiles and above all measure themselves as the good macho that they are against other machos, do not talk about clouds with them, they are not interested in the beautiful things that surround them

In the end, those who love DCS as it is continue to enjoy it and those who are never satisfied make their own simulator.