TOP 5 things I'd like to see for 2025!!!

[cptmrcalm]

Here you go then. Some suggestions for ED - Not just things I want to see, but things I think would attract more users!

 

But of course, one big BIG PLEASE wish included!!!!

 

 

[MAXsenna]

In a video, and not a list? That's a new one.

Sent from my SM-A536B using Tapatalk

Music is too loud, and 2 minutes in you haven't even mentioned ONE wish?

Sent from my SM-A536B using Tapatalk

[Gunfreak]

FU4 Corsair...

Nah just kidding. Probably 3 more 20xx and beyond vidoes until we might see it for more than 3 seconds.

I would like new infantry with the new animations.

But most of all that long ago mentioned general flight model thing. That supposedly should fix so many AI aircraft problems.

Any major improvement to ww2 DCS would be cool to.

[cptmrcalm]

Yes, ground crew nearly made it in there. Especially as I enjoy the carrier crew.

47 minutes ago, MAXsenna said:

In a video, and not a list? That's a new one.

Sent from my SM-A536B using Tapatalk
 

Music is too loud, and 2 minutes in you haven't even mentioned ONE wish?

Sent from my SM-A536B using Tapatalk
 

Haha.. its probably because I am getting old. I don't like it when people dont even leave a pause between sentences! Not going to be for everyone I guess.

[MAXsenna]

Yes, ground crew nearly made it in there. Especially as I enjoy the carrier crew.
Haha.. its probably because I am getting old. I don't like it when people dont even leave a pause between sentences! Not going to be for everyone I guess.

Nah, the music is fine during the pauses. I had a hard time hearing you sometimes, that's why.
Cheers!

Sent from my SM-A536B using Tapatalk

[cptmrcalm]

ED, if your reading this, I am just curious what you think about flyable tankers and AWACS aircraft. Your large commercial style jets. My point is - to attract an entirely new group of players to DCS.

 

Reckon you might draw in a lot of people there.

As for the rest in the video - I guess these are requests you have heard before?

[Dangerzone]

Mine might be a bit more basic - but would still make a nice difference for us mission designers and server hosters:

• Setting that can toggle "Dynamic Spawn" setting on FARPS via LUA Code and triggers. (Especially for dynamically created FARPS during gameplay). Please - with this finally being in arms reach - for the love of begging - PLEASE
• Plane directors on Supercarrier to be finished. (Really looking forward to seeing this)
• New and improved ATC
• Towering CU's and Thunderstorms in weather. (As seen on one of ED's video's from a couple of years ago now?)
• More focus/ resources directed towards bug-fixing for long-time outstanding bugs.  (A few more beta testers added to the mix wouldn't hurt either - particularly focusing especially those who have equipment/do scripting/have reported issues they've gotten straight away after releases that other CB's have missed) I'd suggest CFRAG should be considered.

Obviously F4 Corsair, C130, Vulkan, DCE, greater MT integration, etc as well, but decided to focus on the unsung features that would make some great difference.

[draconus]

On 10/2/2024 at 8:38 PM, MAXsenna said:

In a video, and not a list?

In the wishlist section, bold and red:

Quote

We do not have time to read through a 30 post thread of two people arguing why something is bad, in fact most times we will just read the first post for the idea and move on from there, if there are 30 posts and a good star rating we will just assume everyone loves the idea.

So 11 min video sounds like really great idea to make their life's harder and just ignore this "wish" from the start.

[MiG21bisFishbedL]

On 10/3/2024 at 1:16 AM, cptmrcalm said:

ED, if your reading this, I am just curious what you think about flyable tankers and AWACS aircraft. Your large commercial style jets. My point is - to attract an entirely new group of players to DCS.

 

Reckon you might draw in a lot of people there.

As for the rest in the video - I guess these are requests you have heard before?

AWACS is going to be a sticking point. Getting accurate information on radar performance is going to be extremely difficult.

Tanking is something that needs to be looked at. With Heatblur bringing us the A-6, flying the KA-6D was a part of any A-6 squadron experience. So, it's something that should be included.

Edited October 4, 2024 by MiG21bisFishbedL

[MAXsenna]

35 minutes ago, MiG21bisFishbedL said:

AWACS is going to be a sticking point. Getting accurate information on radar performance is going to be extremely difficult.

Tanking is something that needs to be looked at. With Heatblur bringing us the A-6, flying the KA-6D was a part of any A-6 squadron experience. So, it's something that should be included.

 

Completely agree. And it can't be that hard. 

Edited October 4, 2024 by MAXsenna

[cptmrcalm]

Regarding AWACS, I personally don't have combined arms, but, it is my understanding that it gives you some intel during multiplayer - perhaps that could be incorporated.

 

Having now started typing this, this project could be quite exciting. Having a switch to take you to a "back seat" which would be an Air Controller screen of sorts (Variant of the F10 map). Wow.

 

I used to like flying the B52 in BMS despite the model being a little basic. It was a welcome change to the fast jets and of course, there was an overwhelming satisfaction of dropping hundreds of bombs!

 

 

[MiG21bisFishbedL]

16 hours ago, MAXsenna said:

Completely agree. And it can't be that hard. 

 

In my experience, if it isn't hard? It'll find a way to become hard. A better question to ask is "Is it worthwhile?"

Here? Absolutely. It'd also require an overhaul of AAR physics, which we really do need. That alone would make it worth it, nevermind the additional facet of gameplay.

[Ignition]

On 10/3/2024 at 4:03 AM, Dangerzone said:

Mine might be a bit more basic - but would still make a nice difference for us mission designers and server hosters:

• Setting that can toggle "Dynamic Spawn" setting on FARPS via LUA Code and triggers. (Especially for dynamically created FARPS during gameplay). Please - with this finally being in arms reach - for the love of begging - PLEASE
• Plane directors on Supercarrier to be finished. (Really looking forward to seeing this)
• New and improved ATC
• Towering CU's and Thunderstorms in weather. (As seen on one of ED's video's from a couple of years ago now?)
• More focus/ resources directed towards bug-fixing for long-time outstanding bugs.  (A few more beta testers added to the mix wouldn't hurt either - particularly focusing especially those who have equipment/do scripting/have reported issues they've gotten straight away after releases that other CB's have missed) I'd suggest CFRAG should be considered.

Obviously F4 Corsair, C130, Vulkan, DCE, greater MT integration, etc as well, but decided to focus on the unsung features that would make some great difference.

+1 for Dynamic Spawn on dynamically spawned FARPS, it would make helicopters much more useful on campaigns.

[cfrag]

Huh. At this juncture I flat-out dispute ED's willingness/ability (from a business perspective) to produce anything except shiny new (EA) modules (which may or may not receive the occasional update post-launch), and some absolutely crucial band-aid tech updates that help keep the DCS ship afloat. ED adheres to the old 'one-off' sales model, meaning that they must sell new stuff every day to stay afloat. New modules, even if severely undercooked, make it to sale early for better ROI and higher NPV. Half-baked Modules that no longer sell well will languish and merely receive must-have support to remove show-stopping bugs, and very little else. I believe we all own at least one pet module that fits that description (I own them all). 

I deem a dynamic campaign or save/load capabilities currently beyond ED's financial project focus: it brings in marginally more (if any) new customers compared to new models for the same investment and (worse) can't be monetized directly -- so accordingly few (if any) resources can/will be allocated. Sure, features are 'promised', and we all know that talk is cheap. Being able to follow up your promises is gold, and "real artist ship". ED seem to be lacking in that department - for obvious reasons: new complex stuff like the dynamic campaign is expensive to implement, with comparatively little 'sex appeal' for the majority of players (anyone reading this exempted, of course). Financially, it's a non-starter and whatever ED may say in this regard I deem irrelevant. What they deliver counts, and the score in that department has been depressingly low in the past 5 years.

Consider Super Carrier, Mission Editor, ATC, Ground AI, Dynamic Campaigns, Vulkan, Dynamic Weather etc. Talk is cheap. Instead, we received an Afghanistan Alpha (which already is behind its update schedule), a Chinook Alpha that barely works, a broken Cargo/Warehouse System that makes your eyes water should you want to use it, and we will soon receive an Alpha Iraq. I predict that updates to these will follow their sales track: low sales = slow updates. Dynamic  Campaign? There will be "encouraging status updates" and "progress reports", maybe even "concepts of plans". I highly doubt we will ever see it in-game, with perhaps the same likelihood that we will ever see a "Star Citizen 1.0". It's close to Astroturf. I think that a Dynamic Campaign paid Module would have better chances of ever seeing the light of day - and that IMHO would make more sense (and a day one purchase from me) financially. But even if ED could monetize a Dynamic Campaign, I doubt that it would attract enough people, so that's doubtful as well. There will be general progress in DCS, no doubt. And it will be driven by additional sales of fresh early-access modules -- not new groundbreaking tech that only excites the (hard)core players hanging out in these forums. 

So, yeah, there are many things that would be cool if we could see them in 2025. More planes for sure, and that will happen. Anything else, especially tech infrastructure upgrades I don't believe to be in the cards. Especially considering that whatever is going to be released in 2025 must be in testing now.

So yeah, the future looks bright -- for new modules. Let's see how it all turns out.

Edited November 2, 2024 by cfrag

[SharpeXB]

The idea of purpose I think was a very good point. And its relation to a Dynamic Campaign. I sometimes wonder if what keeps flight sims like this such a niche genre is that players shy away from them figuring all they offer is shallow quick missions or limited campaigns that don’t justify the time spend learning aircraft or investments in hardware. A very important feature that needs to accompany this is a game save function. Without this such in-depth gameplay doesn’t have much purpose since it’s not approachable to a market beyond the retired and unemployed. To me those would be the most important things the game could add. 

[coopercobra03]

*Dynamic Campaign

*Better AWACS

*Better ATC

*More (random) explosion animations

*Better dynamic weather

The dynamic campaign is important, I would even pay for it at this point. 

[Dangerzone]

On 11/3/2024 at 3:51 AM, cfrag said:

Huh. At this juncture I flat-out dispute ED's willingness/ability (from a business perspective) to produce anything except shiny new (EA) modules (which may or may not receive the occasional update post-launch), and some absolutely crucial band-aid tech updates that help keep the DCS ship afloat.

I hear you. I've lost the majority of the drive I used to have for developing for DCS. I had incredible ideas and spent a vast amount of time developing a library of code for this over the past 4 years to come so close but fall so short and hard. 

I realize now that this is not achievable, and coming to a hard reality that this may never be (at least within DCS). Not because it can't happen, but because ED's current focus, objectives or methods are hostile to 3rd party community dev's. I'll forever be within finger-tip reach of my goals, but never be able to cross the line. The carrot will always dangle just that little further out. 

My first wakeup call was their treatment of RJ. Oh boy - that was a real eye opener for me, and I've just observed more since. (Ironic, as since joining a server with Overlordbot was what got me hooked on DCS in the first place). Up until RJ's departure I thought it was just ED having too many irons in the fire and I battled through with hope that things would get to a working point and that the 3rd party dev's were wanted to increase DCS's footprint.

But since then I'm beginning to come to a different possibility. In part,  whether it may be intentional to support their ecosystem. 3rd party multiplayer servers bring little direct finance into the bank - especially if the vast majority of DCS players are SP, but they expose numerous bugs, and encourage more older modules to be used more often. Servers like ours could actually be a curse, not a blessing to them. Also, maybe my objectives (and others like yourself) could even be considered competitive to ED's goals - such as their dynamic campaign engine?

Maybe there's far more money in having DCS as a sandbox simulator where people buy a module, fly it for a while, and then move onto the next module, forgetting their old ones, and that having MP communities keep these old modules ticking create more PR problems than benefits for ED?

If so, it would make sense if so, as to why RJ was treated the way he was, or why things like dynamic spawn come out without the option to apply it to dynamically created FARPS, or bugs with events introduced, and then not corrected quickly. I mean - for years we've been asking for such features. And when Dynamic spawns was created, and it was possible to include - it's been excluded and nothing but crickets since. I'm no longer thinking it was an oversight, but wondering if it was indeed intentional. 

It would also make sense why people like you (who give so much to the community, and have developed new ways of achieving these things) haven't been invited into the CB testers - given the amount of pre-release testing you would be able to offer. I always scratched my head as to how DCS updates could be released with so many bugs so often and ED not want the people who would see these kinds of bugs first on their testing team. 

But, given that the majority of ED's player base is supposedly single player, and understandably $'s dictate the direction of a company - it seems to be plausible that ED have a different goal/objective that is opposed to non commercial 3rd party community developers. 

Of course, this is all hypothasis, trying to make sense of their actions. I could be way off the mark, but even if I am - the outcome still seems to be same. Us creating unmaintainable libraries of code that breaks when new bugs are introduced with new updates that aren't fixed, an unstable environment, no official documentation for API's, unwillingness to include into new features what community has asked for years  (like the Dynamic spawns on dynamically created FARPS) to be usable with dynamically created FARPS, or open up the API to toggle dynamic spawn on/off at runtime, or the numerous items that RJ had on his list. 

It makes me stand in awe at the achievement of the MOOSE community, where it has successed so well, and really in spite of ED's lack of support. But it also has made me end my development, and seriously consider moving on from my passion of developing for DCS and just use DCS for more basic occasional flights. 

Edited November 15, 2024 by Dangerzone

[ruxtmp]

Unfortunately, most of these will likely never happen in the lifetime of this game. In another thread ATC was already commented that it is low priority, very complex, and be patient. I can only assume if ATC is so complicated as it cannot be improved from what it was in 10 years it is never happening. Same holds true for the supercarrier ATC, it is what it is with no real improvements on the horizon. The only hope I have is somehow a talented modder will create a mod to simulate ATC for both land bases and aircraft carriers.