DCS Players Have Had Enough - A youtubers opinion

[giullep]

an interesting point of view

 

[waterman]

Well done i just thought i would post a quick reply before its locked or deleted .

A Good Honest Video.

I would take note of what he says.

The rest of the users "may" wake up soon and go on a new module hunger strike !

It must be hard for the DCS programmers having to leave projects broken and unfinished.

Not much job satisfaction having to do that.

 

Waterman

 

[sirrah]

While I do get some of the frustrations, one has to also admit that the DCS community is very hard to please.

I mean, since DCS World's existence, everybody is constantly asking for new features, new modules, new eye candy, etc.

Some complain about their favorite module being incomplete and they're angry that new modules are released. While they do not realize that others may have been wishing for that new module just as long. For instance; I couldn't care less about any of the ww2 modules, but you won't hear me complain that ED and 3rd parties are working on it, while work on my favorite modules is not complete yet.

I totally get that many want to see products finished first, before adding more, but personally I don't mind that ED and it's partners are pumping out content. Even if half finished.

As an example; I rather see new content added that I'm interested in in early/crude state (like the new clouds we got a few years ago), than having to wait for some module I'm not interested in to get finished.

 

I just wanted to share my view on things. No offence or disrespect meant to anyone of course. In the end, we all want the same: "that perfect mil flight sim" 

[waterman]

Another quick comment from me - when a module is left unfinished for a couple of years it is very hard for the original programmer to try and fix the faulty mess he created.

Even worse maybe its a new programmer who has not seen the code before and that may explain why other code in other modules keeps being broken.

I know first hand i have built many models and DCS is waiting for the slightest error.

If i have a break for a few weeks from a model its very hard to pick up where i left off. 

Much better sleep at night knowing you have a nice neat working package.

Just trying to give my friendly point of view as a programmer and DCS model creator. 

waterman

[NineLine]

9 hours ago, waterman said:

Well done i just thought i would post a quick reply before its locked or deleted .

A Good Honest Video.

I would take note of what he says.

The rest of the users "may" wake up soon and go on a new module hunger strike !

It must be hard for the DCS programmers having to leave projects broken and unfinished.

Not much job satisfaction having to do that.

 

Waterman

 

Guys, once again we only remove posts if they break the rules, we do not remove posts because they are negative, frustrated or unhappy with DCS. This can be seen by a simple search in the forums.

Programmers do not get removed or leave a module in the middle of their work, rather sometimes their work is long and complex. For example, currently, we have someone working on the Sniper pod for the F-16C. He has not been removed and only stops for vacation. He has literally been working on this pod for months. Now before you say, oh he must be a bad programmer or slow. No this involves all aspects of creating an item in DCS, from researching, designing, and implementing. Sadly it takes a lot of time. Same with radar improvements, we may say we are improving a radar, and then go quiet for some time. That is them work away. We have hired people so we don't have to remove someone mid-project because it would be very tough to drop something in the middle and move to something else.

I will also note, from the video. I get that everyone is eager for the Dynamic Campaign. It's a monumental undertaking. For example, way back when Falcon 4's Dynamic Campaign took over 5 years to do. They only had one flyable aircraft to deal with, and 1 era. This DC release has to be whatever one expects, and beyond. Even Falcon 4's campaign while good for its time wouldn't cut it if we just copied and pasted it into DCS (not that that is even possible) And before you say, oh he doesn't know, I have been flying simulations since the early days, I bought a computer for Falcon. It has to meet or more so exceed expectations now, and some of those expectations are immense and well beyond what has been seen. Our internal expectations have to be met as we know you want nothing but an exceptional experience with it. 

Some good points are made in the video, but some I am not sure I agree with. For example his dismissal of Bomb Fuses. They do do something in DCS and were very much needed. Anyways, I just wanted to answer a couple of points here. If there is something else from the video you want me to expand on, I will do my best. 

Once again, if you keep your posts within the very VERY simple frame work of the forum rules, your posts do not get removed. 

Thanks!

[giullep]

I posted the video that i found on youtube only to show an a different opinion about dcs, out of the normal vision on this forum..only to have a different idea. I support ED, i have paid for years, and i have paid for afghan mao, iraq map, ch-47..to support ED..i hope that the different opinions could help to make Dcs better…

[LucShep]

I'm not sure what authority the creator of the video has to represent everybody, by using the word "we".
But, that said, I appreciate the patience and will to post the video, to voice some common concerns - thank you for that.

I could list a whole group of issues, with the AI, or with new features introduced while others get broken, and with bugs that remain in the modules for indefinite.
But the three main issues I have with DCS (which were not really addressed there) have exhisted for years and years on end.

They are 1) the performance, 2) the issue that new maps create, and 3) the lack of depth for specific eras where the aircrafts exhist in.

1. Performance.
   No need to be a scientist to understand that the wrong size and format of textures has been chosen for many years, and it gets worse with every new module/map release.
   No, it's not a matter of reducing texture settings in game options because those only reduce the texture MIP in use. But the whole texture file size is still loaded regardless, overwhelming the drives, RAM, and barely aleviating the VRAM.
   Another example (and there are others), and beautiful as it is, the new clouds system (introduced with 2.7.0) was a mistake, as it heavily bogged down the performance benefits we add with 2.5.6.  In my experience, VR was never the same again (still isn't).
   People want better and better detail 3D models (mooaar polygons), larger rendering distances, but forget that all that imediately means a heavy price to pay, in performance hit and (even higher) hardware requirements. A bit of a comical sentiment and desire, when that (performance issues and hardware requirements) is already a problem for so many users (I'd wager the majority?), especially for those playing complex missions and more so if in Multi-Player. 
   Simply put, you can't have your cake and eat it too.
   What we need now is not prettier graphics, we need drastic optimization. Like yesterday! 
   It's only once that is done effectively, and achieved in the practice, that the next graphical improvements can/should be considered.
    
2. Issue with new Maps.
   These can become a really bad investment because the size of the community forces players to gather on one or two main maps (usually Caucasus and Syria), which leaves all those nice new maps unused in Multi-Player.
   So, basically, buying these new maps ends up in having to focus on Single-Player (not Multi-Player), with their buyers left with the hope that mission/campaign creators expand/add to them. It makes little sense unless you want to help funding (like a donation to) ED.
   The issue becomes even more prevalent because some of these new maps overlap with each other, but are released separate of each other. When, instead, they should have been expanded (joint together, continuously) onto a larger map.
    
3. Lack of depth for specific eras.
   Then there's the issue with assets, maps, and overall content that doesn't focus on specific time periods, which is a must for realistic conflicts recreation (past and present).  This has been one of the longest issues with DCS (maybe since the start?).
   We have aircraft from different periods and generations, all beautifully done, but then the content and context in which they're used does not follow same lines.
   In the end, it becomes a beautiful mix of disjointed period content (sometimes not making much sense) that turns into something rather generic.
    

Edited November 5, 2024 by LucShep
spelling(?)

[diego999]

6 hours ago, sirrah said:

While I do get some of the frustrations, one has to also admit that the DCS community is very hard to please.

I mean, since DCS World's existence, everybody is constantly asking for new features, new modules, new eye candy, etc.

Some complain about their favorite module being incomplete and they're angry that new modules are released. While they do not realize that others may have been wishing for that new module just as long. For instance; I couldn't care less about any of the ww2 modules, but you won't hear me complain that ED and 3rd parties are working on it, while work on my favorite modules is not complete yet.

I totally get that many want to see products finished first, before adding more, but personally I don't mind that ED and it's partners are pumping out content. Even if half finished.

As an example; I rather see new content added that I'm interested in in early/crude state (like the new clouds we got a few years ago), than having to wait for some module I'm not interested in to get finished.

 

I just wanted to share my view on things. No offence or disrespect meant to anyone of course. In the end, we all want the same: "that perfect mil flight sim" 

 

The frustration, in my case at least, comes from the perceived lack of honesty.

Afghanistan was shown in very nice looking videos and they talked over and over again about their new amazing map tech.

Then we found out the released map looks worse than Caucasus except for a few small high detailed areas. And when asked they said maybe we'll fix it, maybe we won't.

That's not nice.

My last purchase was the Phantom, and I don't regret it as it is a fantastic module, even with its problems and the stuff that wasn't added yet. And by the look of things, I won't be buying anything else until they get their **** straight priorities sorted.

 

[NineLine]

21 minutes ago, LucShep said:

I'm not sure what authority the creator of the video has to represent everybody by, using the word "we".
But, that said, I appreciated the patience and will to post the video and voice some common concerns - thank you for that.

The three main issues I have with DCS were not really addressed there, and (IMO) have exhisted for years on end.

They are 1) the performance, 2) the issue that new maps create, and 3) the lack of depth for specific eras where the aircrafts exhist in.

1. Performance.
   You don't need to be a scientist to understand that the wrong size of textures has been chosen for years and years, and it gets worse with every new module/map release.
   No, it's not a matter of reducing texture settings in game options because those only reduce the texture MIP in use. But the whole texture size is still loaded, overwhelming the drives, RAM, and barely aleviating the VRAM.
   People want better and better detail (mooaar poligons), larger rendering distances, but forget that all that imediately means a heavy price to pay, in performance hit and hardware requirements. A bit of a comical sentiments and desires, when that (performance issues) is already a problem for so many users (I'd wager the majority?), especially for those playing complex missions and more so if in multiplayer.  Simply put, you can't have your cake and eat it too.
   What we need now is not better graphics, we need drastic optimization. Like yesterday! 
   It's only once that it's done effectively and achived in the practice, that the next graphical improvements can/should be considered.
    
2. Issue with new Maps
   These can become a really bad investment because the size of the community forces players to gather on one or two main maps (usually Caucasus and Syria), which leaves all those nice new maps unused in Multiplayer.
   So, basically, buying these new maps end up having use focus on single player (not MP), with their buyers left with the hope that mission/campaign creators expande/add to them.
   The issue becomes even more prevalent because as some of these new maps overlap with each other, instead of having them expanded (joint together, continuously) onto a larger map.
    
3. Then there's the issue with assets, maps, and overall content that doesn't focus on specific time periods, which is a must for realistic conflicts recreation (past and present).
   This has been one of the longest issues with DCS (maybe since the start). We have aircraft from different periods and generations, all beautifully done, but then the content and context in which they're used does not follow same lines.
   In the end, it becomes a beautiful mix of disjointed period content (sometimes not making much sense) that turns into something rather generic.
    

 

Thanks for the reply and the points.

1. 1000%, these have been driven home hard to our team that the newest modules have some work to be done. I hope to see some improvements here not too long from now. We can still have the high-end textures we just need to make sure the lower-end settings do something for sure. It's been brought to everyone's attention internally.

2. Believe it or not, single-player is still a very big part of DCS, MP has grown and we are happy about that, but even Syria went through a period where no one was going to play it because everything was set up for older maps. We have map teams, and they will continue bringing new and exciting maps. Having more theatres to play is never a bad thing, but if you are only flying MP then I totally get why you might not want a certain map that isn't being used. I do not think that makes a 30% off pre-order a bad investment, BUT I understand that not everyone has the extra money lying around, so as always it's an individual choice on what you do or don't buy. We just want to offer as many places to drop warheads as possible, hopefully, some greener pastures soon as well.

3. Well we recently added a 3rd Party asset pack free to the game, and we continue to upgrade and add new assets of our own. So this is important even if we are not moving as fast as everyone wants. I agree more assets is never a bad thing. 

Thanks!

16 minutes ago, diego999 said:

 

The frustration, in my case at least, comes from the perceived lack of honesty.

Afghanistan was shown in very nice looking videos and they talked over and over again about their new amazing map tech.

Then we found out the released map looks worse than Caucasus except for a few small high detailed areas. And when asked they said maybe we'll fix it, maybe we won't.

That's not nice.

My last purchase was the Phantom, and I don't regret it as it is a fantastic module, even with its problems and the stuff that wasn't added yet. And by the look of things, I won't be buying anything else until they get their **** straight priorities sorted.

 

Where did we say maybe we will fix it maybe we won't? The videos were made from the same map everyone received, yes it's not complete and many areas need improvements but I don't think we hid that from anyone. This is an honest question as I want to know if we are not sending a clear message about Early Access Maps. Thanks!

[LucShep]

2 hours ago, NineLine said:

Thanks for the reply and the points.

1. 1000%, these have been driven home hard to our team that the newest modules have some work to be done. I hope to see some improvements here not too long from now. We can still have the high-end textures we just need to make sure the lower-end settings do something for sure. It's been brought to everyone's attention internally.

2. Believe it or not, single-player is still a very big part of DCS, MP has grown and we are happy about that, but even Syria went through a period where no one was going to play it because everything was set up for older maps. We have map teams, and they will continue bringing new and exciting maps. Having more theatres to play is never a bad thing, but if you are only flying MP then I totally get why you might not want a certain map that isn't being used. I do not think that makes a 30% off pre-order a bad investment, BUT I understand that not everyone has the extra money lying around, so as always it's an individual choice on what you do or don't buy. We just want to offer as many places to drop warheads as possible, hopefully, some greener pastures soon as well.

3. Well we recently added a 3rd Party asset pack free to the game, and we continue to upgrade and add new assets of our own. So this is important even if we are not moving as fast as everyone wants. I agree more assets is never a bad thing. 

 

Thanks for responding.
I appreciate that ED and third parties are onto it.
But, unfortunately, the issues have been around for so long and so prevalent that I'll have to reply with "I believe it when I see it".

About 2), I don't know the proportions of Single-Player versus Multi-Player. But I'm sure you're aware that the Multi-Player numbers are pretty big, and it's flourishing (despite all these complaints).  And there are valid reasons for it.  People feel compelled to get into Multi-Player, and that'll only increase, because:

• The AI is basically "alien", it's super-human. There were improvements, but it's still a big issue.
  Not just the AI pilots, which most times seen to ignore same rules/routines that we have to follow. But especially the silly ultra accurate AAA, ruining ground attacks, which makes missions and campaigns sometimes unplayable.
  To engage other humans, in places (servers) where that playground is well set, it imediately means improving that experience, and forget such common issues.  
   
• The type of semi-dynamic missions in some popular servers as of late (with all the merit) such as HeatBlur's Cold War, Contention, Growling Sidewinder, or ShadowReapers (among other big servers), disguise some of those issues of Single-Player, and it really improves the player's experience.
  Having those, as they are, is perhaps not "traditional DCS" but it certainly is -and makes it all- far more engaging and rewarding, because in one swipe makes it unpredictable and reduces the pesky "Alien" AI presence with other fellow members in their place.
  So, instead of the all scripted (sometimes frustrating) and also repetitive experience that you get once you play/replay a Single-Player mission/campaign.

Edited October 27, 2024 by LucShep

[TheFreshPrince]

I don't get why ED doesn't listen to user feedback, it's really frustrating. Instead they always seem to know it better. Also no guidance as in what to expect in the next months or year, so also nothing to look forward to. I don't count the "and beyond video", because apparently "beyond" can mean anything between now and the next 100 years. Lots of fixes, but still and even more lots of bugs. It seems like DCS is getting lost in details while the important things are being left untouched. New buttons and gimmicks for F-16 or F-18 are cool, but those aircraft are pretty fine as they are (or were before all the bugs and certain changes). It would be better to focus on what annoys most of the community instead of a few enthusiasts. The RAZBAM issue is the tip of the iceberg. The Spotting dots issue is another example (1300 posts in the main thread!). I know ED is working on this stuff, but you can work all day long, in the end it's the results that matter. And when I joined there were a lot of improvements, but for some reason this year was pretty disappointing, also most of last year. Luckily there is no competition for DCS, but that also doesn't mean that people need to play DCS at all. I personally am not gonna wait another year for something to change.

[Boosterdog]

1 hour ago, NineLine said:

 

Where did we say maybe we will fix it maybe we won't? The videos were made from the same map everyone received, yes it's not complete and many areas need improvements but I don't think we hid that from anyone. This is an honest question as I want to know if we are not sending a clear message about Early Access Maps. Thanks!

Have a look at the thread for the last newsletter but one. All the relevent points as to why some of us feel thats not the case are there. 

The "maybe we'll fix it" sentement comes from the protest after Afghanistan was FAQ'd as feature complete, the back and forth as to what this meant, the rewording of the FAQ and the current stance that the Hi-Fi areas will be completed for the whole map before a look is taken at seeing what scope remains to improve the rest. 

Its not an EA issue. Its the fact that the entire map is based on low rez textures to which there is no certain fix or confirmed roadmap of improvement.  If you really wanted to send a clear message about EA mpas, you should perhaps include some of those awful looking areas with an explanation of what improvements, if any, will come. At the moment the EA I once happily took part in to support ED has become more of an unknown that it should be when it comes to maps.  Its no longer a case of how long something will take to arrive but rather if. 

[NineLine]

1 hour ago, LucShep said:

Thanks for responding.
I appreciate that ED and third parties are onto it.
But, unfortunately, the issues have been around for so long and so prevalent that I'll have to reply with "I believe it when I see it".

About 2), I don't know the proportions of Single-Player versus Multi-Player. But I'm sure you're aware that the Multi-Player numbers are pretty big, and it's flourishing (despite all these complaints).  And there are valid reasons for it.  People feel compelled to get into Multi-Player, and that'll only increase, because:

• The AI is basically "alien", it's super-human. There were improvements, but it's still a big issue.
  Not just the AI pilots, which most times seen to ignore same rules/routines that we have to follow. But especially the silly ultra accurate AAA, ruining ground attacks, which makes missions and campaigns sometimes unplayable.
  To engage other humans, in places (servers) where that playground is well set, it imediately means improving that experience, and forget such common issues.  
   
• The type of semi-dynamic missions in some popular servers as of late (with all the merit) such as Cold War, Contention, Growling Sidewinder, or Shadow Reapers (among other big servers), disguise some of those issues of Single-Player, and improves the player's experience.
  Having those, as they are, is perhaps not "traditional DCS" but it certainly is -and makes it all- far more engaging and rewarding, because in one swipe makes it unpredictable and reduces the pesky "Alien" AI presence.
  So, instead of the all scripted (sometimes frustrating) and also repetitive experience that you get once you redo/replay a Single-Player mission/campaign.

 

AI has been tuned, I know this because the original internal report is mine  Now is it perfect? Probably not but as far as Ground AI vs aircraft it's much improved but I haven't closed my report yet. Though I wonder if you meant ultra silly accurate AAA, I found that many times non-AAA units engaged faster and were more accurate, much of this has been fixed, but even something like the Zu-23 with simple evasion maneuvers is pretty easy to defeat, and again its not finished but also make sure you are not giving them a good target either.

Alien AI is still an issue in some cases for sure, its all been reported and I hope to see these tweaked sooner rather than later (although I understand, its already later). The MiG-15 and MiG-21 are some of the work offenders, now they can be defeated but are a little more challenging than they should be vs what should be a superior aircraft.

I would love to see more dynamic options to make MP and even SP more dynamic for sure, now some of it is there in the ME, but I can also understand it's not always so cut and dry for the average DCS pilot.

 

56 minutes ago, TheFreshPrince said:

I don't get why ED doesn't listen to user feedback, it's really frustrating. Instead they always seem to know it better. Also no guidance as in what to expect in the next months or year, so also nothing to look forward to. I don't count the "and beyond video", because apparently "beyond" can mean anything between now and the next 100 years. Lots of fixes, but still and even more lots of bugs. It seems like DCS is getting lost in details while the important things are being left untouched. New buttons and gimmicks for F-16 or F-18 are cool, but those aircraft are pretty fine as they are (or were before all the bugs and certain changes). It would be better to focus on what annoys most of the community instead of a few enthusiasts. The RAZBAM issue is the tip of the iceberg. The Spotting dots issue is another example (1300 posts in the main thread!). I know ED is working on this stuff, but you can work all day long, in the end it's the results that matter. And when I joined there were a lot of improvements, but for some reason this year was pretty disappointing, also most of last year. Luckily there is no competition for DCS, but that also doesn't mean that people need to play DCS at all. I personally am not gonna wait another year for something to change.

I would say a good majority of BIGNEWY's and mine bug reports are directly from customers. We are always listening, but its not always as easy to fix as you might think.

Spotting dots is a great example of something that can be very personal from person to person, from headset to headset and from computer to computer. We have similar frustrations getting something that will cover everyone and more improvements are on the way, this next patch is more for 2D, as we work on a way to identify a headset to adjust the dot for that unit, add to that we are looking at some adjustment for users, but we also have to look at ways that can be used to abuse such a system. So it's not always cut and dry. 

 

30 minutes ago, Boosterdog said:

Have a look at the thread for the last newsletter but one. All the relevent points as to why some of us feel thats not the case are there. 

The "maybe we'll fix it" sentement comes from the protest after Afghanistan was FAQ'd as feature complete, the back and forth as to what this meant, the rewording of the FAQ and the current stance that the Hi-Fi areas will be completed for the whole map before a look is taken at seeing what scope remains to improve the rest. 

Its not an EA issue. Its the fact that the entire map is based on low rez textures to which there is no certain fix or confirmed roadmap of improvement.  If you really wanted to send a clear message about EA mpas, you should perhaps include some of those awful looking areas with an explanation of what improvements, if any, will come. At the moment the EA I once happily took part in to support ED has become more of an unknown that it should be when it comes to maps.  Its no longer a case of how long something will take to arrive but rather if. 

Afghanistan was our first map released with this method, so from a marketing standpoint, I can say a lot of lessons were and continue to be made on how to explain and share this info. Early Access for an aircraft is much different than early access for a map. Then take into account that the map can be bought in chunks if you so choose. So it has a lot to explain and make clear and I will be the first to admit we did not do a great job explaining that and did a lot of correct on the run when that pre-order came out. I think our message has been clearer for Iraq but I understand this is new and different and maybe not everyone agrees with it. Now some people hate to hear this, but EA still remains an option, we love it not just because we get money, although businesses tend to appreciate money in general, but we also get invaluable feedback while we are in a much earlier and easier stage to make huge changes. I also think many people enjoy getting in early on a product and being part of the process to improve and make it better. I see both sides though. 

[diego999]

1 hour ago, NineLine said:

Early Access for an aircraft is much different than early access for a map. 

 

After the recent Afghanistan situation and Sinai -that spent more than a year without a single update- I think most of us are realizing that. And not in a positive way.

[motoadve]

1 hour ago, NineLine said:

AI has been tuned, I know this because the original internal report is mine  Now is it perfect? Probably not but as far as Ground AI vs aircraft it's much improved but I haven't closed my report yet. Though I wonder if you meant ultra silly accurate AAA, I found that many times non-AAA units engaged faster and were more accurate, much of this has been fixed, but even something like the Zu-23 with simple evasion maneuvers is pretty easy to defeat, and again its not finished but also make sure you are not giving them a good target either.

WWII AI has been ruined though.

[NineLine]

23 minutes ago, motoadve said:

WWII AI has been ruined though.

It's not just WWII although WWII shows it much more, it's a high-priority item internally right now, it was change to visibility, bad changes it seems. But please understand it wasn't a result of changing ground AI that I described above. 

 

37 minutes ago, diego999 said:

 

After the recent Afghanistan situation and Sinai -that spent more than a year without a single update- I think most of us are realizing that. And not in a positive way.

Afghanistan situation? Do you mean the delay in the update? I am not sure what situation you mean. Sinai is a 3rd Party Map, they decide when they are ready to submit changes and then they do. We have little control over this. 

[motoadve]

33 minutes ago, NineLine said:

It's not just WWII although WWII shows it much more, it's a high-priority item internally right now, it was change to visibility, bad changes it seems. But please understand it wasn't a result of changing ground AI that I described above. 

Thank you, I am glad they are looking into it as a priority.

[waterman]

46 minutes ago, NineLine said:

It's not just WWII although WWII shows it much more, it's a high-priority item internally right now, it was change to visibility, bad changes it seems. But please understand it wasn't a result of changing ground AI that I described above. 

"It's not just WWII although WWII shows it much more" - The WWll Steam Locomotive is a good example - it was working just fine in ST - I posted heaps and heaps of very detailed posts and .miz and .trk files warning about the problems - no one even downloaded any to test and the Locomotives and wagons now have no wheel rotations and valve gear is frozen and trains cannot even be deactivated as i warned. I have put in hundreds of hours developing the trains so i was angry.

That little episode got my topic locked and a warning.

Its hopeless as I have to use an old version of ST if i want to see them working as they should.

I hope the Trains are being worked on by the Team thankyou.

Waterman

[NineLine]

57 minutes ago, waterman said:

"It's not just WWII although WWII shows it much more" - The WWll Steam Locomotive is a good example - it was working just fine in ST - I posted heaps and heaps of very detailed posts and .miz and .trk files warning about the problems - no one even downloaded any to test and the Locomotives and wagons now have no wheel rotations and valve gear is frozen and trains cannot even be deactivated as i warned. I have put in hundreds of hours developing the trains so i was angry.

That little episode got my topic locked and a warning.

Its hopeless as I have to use an old version of ST if i want to see them working as they should.

I hope the Trains are being worked on by the Team thankyou.

Waterman

Trains have been reported for some time, in this case, they are waiting for a free dev. It was originally a project by an individual dev to give us the current train set up, he is simply tied up at the moment to get back to it, but trust me, I remind him alllll the time

1 hour ago, motoadve said:

Thank you, I am glad they are looking into it as a priority.

Yeah its not great right now for sure. 

[SharpeXB]

I can’t understand a reason for the spotting dot debacle. Why does the game need two dot systems which to me appear identical in the game? Dot Labels are widely understood to be a Game Aid (an unrealistic but helpful graphic), but Spotting Dots are purported to be some sort of realistic visibility system. Yet they’re exactly the same thing. So which is it? Why are Dot Labels controlled as a mission/server option but Spotting Dots are not? And why are Spotting Dots forced on for VR players but not for monitors? It’s not great playing online knowing you appear to some other players like a giant brick. The whole situation doesn’t make sense. I get it that ED needs to sell the game to players who may not have good eyesight but that’s what labels are for. And many players just have unrealistic expectations from other games about how easy distant aircraft would be to see, particularly it seems from one that scales up the targets by 2-3x. That problem will never end in these CFS games.

Edited October 28, 2024 by SharpeXB

[Dangerzone]

14 hours ago, sirrah said:

While I do get some of the frustrations, one has to also admit that the DCS community is very hard to please.

I mean, since DCS World's existence, everybody is constantly asking for new features, new modules, new eye candy, etc.

Some complain about their favorite module being incomplete and they're angry that new modules are released. While they do not realize that others may have been wishing for that new module just as long. For instance; I couldn't care less about any of the ww2 modules, but you won't hear me complain that ED and 3rd parties are working on it, while work on my favorite modules is not complete yet.

I totally get that many want to see products finished first, before adding more, but personally I don't mind that ED and it's partners are pumping out content. Even if half finished.

As an example; I rather see new content added that I'm interested in in early/crude state (like the new clouds we got a few years ago), than having to wait for some module I'm not interested in to get finished.

 

I just wanted to share my view on things. No offence or disrespect meant to anyone of course. In the end, we all want the same: "that perfect mil flight sim" 

A nice way to bring balance to the force post.

It is a hard community to please, and like you, I don't mind things being released as they're being worked on too, but that's not what I got out of the video. For me, it's more about breaking things that were working (introducing new bugs where they didn't exist previously), and then sidelining those bugs for years because they're now focused elsewhere. I mean, if I had a mechanic work on my racing car in-between races to improve performance, but while doing so, he blew a fuse for the power steering, it wouldn't be good. But for him then to continue to focus on performance and ignore the blown fuse so the car doesn't operate as well as it did before - that's a real problem. Not quite a fair comparison, but honestly - sometimes that's what it feels like with DCS - at least from a mission builder and server administrators perspective. How the MOOSE guys keep the passion to keep up with what goes on - honestly, they deserve a medal! 

I also feel for ED, and those that are the meat shield between ED and the public. (Looking at you Nineline and BN). You've got a real tough job at the moment (especially looking at youtube comments), and I expect it's the toughest you've probably experienced while doing this job at ED. Keep holding in there - we're all hoping for better times ahead! Sometimes it's easy to forget you're limited with your influence - yet you take a lot of the brunt of the dissatisfaction.

[NineLine]

1 hour ago, SharpeXB said:

I can’t understand a reason for the spotting dot debacle. Why does the game need two dot systems which to me appear identical in the game? Dot Labels are widely understood to be a Game Aid (an unrealistic but helpful graphic), but Spotting Dots are purported to be some sort of realistic visibility system. Yet they’re exactly the same thing. So which is it? Why are Dot Labels controlled as a mission/server option but Spotting Dots are not? And why are Spotting Dots forced on for VR players but not for monitors? It’s not great playing online knowing you appear to some other players like a giant brick. The whole situation doesn’t make sense. I get it that ED needs to sell the game to players who may not have good eyesight but that’s what labels are for. And many players just have unrealistic expectations from other games about how easy distant aircraft would be to see, particularly it seems from one that scales up the targets by 2-3x. That problem will never end in these CFS games.

 

I think it's important but it's tough on our end to control effectively as most have seen. If you look at all the variables from computer quality, headsets, your eyeball quality, it's tough to make a one size fits all. I even now test with and without my reading glasses on (no old people jokes ). And look at say pimax as the dot gets close to the edge of the screens it can grow. 

It remains tough. But it's important to try and find a solution that works for everyone and all it to be turned off if it's not your thing or not wanted.

 

38 minutes ago, Dangerzone said:

A nice way to bring balance to the force post.

It is a hard community to please, and like you, I don't mind things being released as they're being worked on too, but that's not what I got out of the video. For me, it's more about breaking things that were working (introducing new bugs where they didn't exist previously), and then sidelining those bugs for years because they're now focused elsewhere. I mean, if I had a mechanic work on my racing car in-between races to improve performance, but while doing so, he blew a fuse for the power steering, it wouldn't be good. But for him then to continue to focus on performance and ignore the blown fuse so the car doesn't operate as well as it did before - that's a real problem. Not quite a fair comparison, but honestly - sometimes that's what it feels like with DCS - at least from a mission builder and server administrators perspective. How the MOOSE guys keep the passion to keep up with what goes on - honestly, they deserve a medal! 

I also feel for ED, and those that are the meat shield between ED and the public. (Looking at you Nineline and BN). You've got a real tough job at the moment (especially looking at youtube comments), and I expect it's the toughest you've probably experienced while doing this job at ED. Keep holding in there - we're all hoping for better times ahead! Sometimes it's easy to forget you're limited with your influence - yet you take a lot of the brunt of the dissatisfaction.

I appreciate the kind words as I assume BN does as well. I love this sim and I get frustrated as well believe it or not, but after so many years flying sims this is still a dream being able to be apart of what I feel is the top combat flight sim ever. It's been a rough year with all that has transpired but I think we are near the end of some of it and we can continue to move forward. 

Threads, videos etc like this are always good to keep us all in check and make sure we don't get caught up in the wrong things and forget what is truly important.

Thanks all

[SharpeXB]

41 minutes ago, NineLine said:

I think it's important but it's tough on our end to control effectively as most have seen. If you look at all the variables from computer quality, headsets, your eyeball quality, it's tough to make a one size fits all. I even now test with and without my reading glasses on (no old people jokes ). And look at say pimax as the dot gets close to the edge of the screens it can grow. 

It remains tough. But it's important to try and find a solution that works for everyone and all it to be turned off if it's not your thing or not wanted.

I get that people have difficulty with this but that's what labels are for (I’m old enough to wear bifocals too) How are spotting dots any different? Simply turning this off in multiplayer puts you at a disadvantage and VR players cannot turn them off. Again it's two identical features, one that's a game aid mission setting and another that's not. This doesn't make sense. And an accessibility feature for those who need visual help quickly becomes an exploit for those that don’t.

Edited October 28, 2024 by SharpeXB

[NineLine]

2 hours ago, SharpeXB said:

I get that people have difficulty with this but that's what labels are for (I’m old enough to wear bifocals too) How are spotting dots any different? Simply turning this off in multiplayer puts you at a disadvantage and VR players cannot turn them off. Again it's two identical features, one that's a game aid mission setting and another that's not. This doesn't make sense. And an accessibility feature for those who need visual help quickly becomes an exploit for those that don’t.

 

I don't want to make this all about spotting dots but I get that it's been bumpy trying to get something viable.

Labels are a cheat, and I don't mean that in a bad way, but they just are and there is nothing wrong with using them.

Spotting dots are an aid to limitations in certain rendering conditions where the pixels for whatever reason do not show or appear as expected or as desired. They shouldn't make it easier in general but should make spotting more of what you expect from an aircraft at distance.

At higher resolutions for example the pixels of an aircraft could vanish when they shouldn't.

This is the issue though, you need to make something that isn't like labels but appears equally under all conditions, settings and with all different hardware. Spotting dots should look like nothing is turned on, if that makes sense. It's an equalizer between all users with or without it turned on, VR or 2D, 2k, 4k, etc.

It's a challenge.

[mikey69420]

If we're sharing our criticisms here, here's mine: you folk at ED don't seem to care about the mission editor.

What makes me say that ?

It's been what ? 20 years ? And still no left click drag to select multiple objects and even more important than that, no UNDO/REDO button. Unbelievable...