DCS Players Have Had Enough - A youtubers opinion

[er00ic]

3 hours ago, freehand said:

DCS is healthy and will continue to grow all I see is AAA game player mentality trying to creep into the DCS world with there demands.

 

Maybe if ED didn't charge AAA prices for modules players wouldn't have AAA expectations. When the full price of an aircraft is $60-80, even if it's 5+ years old, I should expect it to be as polished as any other game in that price range. This also applies to the cost of a map DLC, where I could spend the same amount of money on a complete game.

[Hog_driver]

4 minutes ago, er00ic said:

This also applies to the cost of a map DLC, where I could spend the same amount of money on a complete game.

Sometimes I think that it would be better to have one game with a working module, ATC, AI, campaign, etc. than a game with a dozen modules that "just works".

[draconus]

15 years of DCS, 30 since ED's Flanker, still growing - looks like they do something good and know how to run their business if you ask me, so most players don't have enough.

Complainers gonna complain, probably out of passion, that's good too. Some seem to be just lost in the forum - wish list and bug forum is not here. Any feedback is a good feedback though.

[BIGNEWY]

23 minutes ago, er00ic said:

Maybe if ED didn't charge AAA prices for modules players wouldn't have AAA expectations. When the full price of an aircraft is $60-80, even if it's 5+ years old, I should expect it to be as polished as any other game in that price range. This also applies to the cost of a map DLC, where I could spend the same amount of money on a complete game.

We believe the price is fair for the work being put into them, we also offer a heavy discount for pre-orders, and early access, as well as running many sales throughout the year. 

thank you 

[er00ic]

17 minutes ago, BIGNEWY said:

We believe the price is fair for the work being put into them, we also offer a heavy discount for pre-orders, and early access, as well as running many sales throughout the year. 

thank you 

This is an excuse more fitting for a college freshman upset that they got a C on their exam. Ultimately, as a customer, I don't care that you worked really hard. I worked hard for my paycheck too. Its currently really difficult to justify buying a DCS module over a polished game for the same price.

I want DCS to be good, but I think you don't do your employer any service by doubling down on how we're the ones who are wrong for wanting AAA quality from a AAA MSRP.

[Hog_driver]

31 minutes ago, draconus said:

Complainers gonna complain, probably out of passion, that's good too. Some seem to be just lost in the forum - wish list and bug forum is not here. Any feedback is a good feedback though.

[Place for that Buzz Astral/Woody meme - whiners and soyboys everywhere, even in the sim community!]

Will items in the wishlist and bug section be addressed faster?

[buceador]

9 minutes ago, er00ic said:

Its currently really difficult to justify buying a DCS module over a polished game for the same price.

I have to agree with this (even though I am aware that there are HUGE budget differentials between the two)

[Mr_sukebe]

Personally I really feel for ED.

They're damned if they do and damned if they don't.

The reality is that they have a finite amount of time to conduct development.  As for where that is then focussed, we as the community are the people who influence it.  Quite clearly there's a multitude of "asks", from "give me a new module", to "improve performance", to "finish X" etc.

ED tread a fine line, attempting to balance their workload, such that it meets the majority of customer wishes, whilst hopefully not doing it inefficiently.

 

Clearly, the you-tuber in question has his own specific set of "asks", and that's his prerogative.  Question is, should we de-prioritise getting say Vulkan ready, or introducing the upcoming Mig29?

 

About the only way that I see to help manage expectations is for ED to run a poll every year, such that they can show how they respond to customer priorities.

[plott1964]

40 minutes ago, er00ic said:

This is an excuse more fitting for a college freshman upset that they got a C on their exam. Ultimately, as a customer, I don't care that you worked really hard. I worked hard for my paycheck too. Its currently really difficult to justify buying a DCS module over a polished game for the same price.

I want DCS to be good, but I think you don't do your employer any service by doubling down on how we're the ones who are wrong for wanting AAA quality from a AAA MSRP.

AAA Quality is subjective. We all should have known going into this that DCS World is not a complete and polished product. It never has been and never will be. ED is constantly updating and modifying the only quasi-milsim/flight simulator game out there. There are a ton of ancillary products associated with DCS development from software and community groups to hardware and simpit/VR type products directly impacted by the future of DCS World and the entire community. As far as the cost and the LOE put into product development, I would agree that some modules maybe more pricey than I think they should be. But, the whole reason ED is business is to make a profit as well as a quality product. They honestly will not have one with out the other. If the products were that bad, they would have been out of business by now.

As for me, I have chose not to purchase any more full fidelity modules solely because I can not justify the cost compared to the effort that I have to put into learning them to enjoy them. That has nothing to with ED module development.

Edited October 29, 2024 by plott1964

[TheFreshPrince]

vor einer Stunde schrieb draconus:

15 years of DCS, 30 since ED's Flanker, still growing - looks like they do something good and know how to run their business if you ask me, so most players don't have enough.

Complainers gonna complain, probably out of passion, that's good too. Some seem to be just lost in the forum - wish list and bug forum is not here. Any feedback is a good feedback though.

At least the Steam Multiplayer numbers tell a different story. Yes, one would need better statistics to really evaulate both the user numbers and the user happiness. But blindly pretending that everything is and will be fine is just ridiculous and also not helpful.

[Beirut]

1 hour ago, er00ic said:

Maybe if ED didn't charge AAA prices for modules players wouldn't have AAA expectations. When the full price of an aircraft is $60-80, even if it's 5+ years old, I should expect it to be as polished as any other game in that price range. This also applies to the cost of a map DLC, where I could spend the same amount of money on a complete game.

 

There is lots of AAA flightsim goodness in DCS. Like many others here, I've been into flightsims for over 30 years and some of what we get in DCS is in the "best-ever" category.  

 

And while it is an expensive hobby to be sure, there is also nothing else like it. And when you figure out the flight time vs. money aspect, it's not that bad at all. My total cost vs time flown amounts to well less than $1 an hour. For cutting edge flightsim high-tech goodness, I'm happy to pay that. 

[gorzasty]

Not demands. Constructive CRITICISM. DCS don't need a defender. Everyone knows what it does good, but it also has a lot of important problems to solve.

Wysłane z mojego VOG-L29 przy użyciu Tapatalka

[plott1964]

I don't think anyone is defending anyone. We are just having a conversation (with differing viewpoints).

[Harlikwin]

8 hours ago, Xhonas said:

I started flying DCS more than 5 years ago. I'm a long time customer and i have bought almost every ED module as well as many 3rd party developer modules. I share the same frustration as many of the people in this thread. What bothers me is both the strategic thinking (or lack of) by ED and also the operational aspect of developing this game. 

1. I dont speak for everyone, but me and many people (that i know) wouldn't be much bothered by the slow progress time in the development of early access products if you guys kept them bug free. It is really annoying having to deal with a different radar bug in the F/A-18 or the F-16 every semester !!  Well, now the F/A-18 is out of early access but the radar is broken in many aspects. For sure you could say that it is still possible to use it, yeah, but the current bugs reduces its mission effectiveness to the point that it can get you killed (got me killed, and you can't say that it is a skill issue or that i am a bad pilot, modesty aside) and that makes it a very frustrating experience. "But we are improving the radar" cool i appreciate it, i sure do, but please, while you develop a new / refactored radar, keep the current one bug free. Last year the F/A-18 radar couldn't guide a sparrow on a cold target for 6+ months!!! And it was reported on the forums for at least 5 months before it was fixed. Why? is the radar too complex and you don't have the manpower to handle it? if that is the case, i would rather have a simplified fc3 radar in my F/A-18 than have something complex but full of bugs. However, it is hard to not compare this to the F-15E Strike Eagle developed by RAZBAM. They have one of, if not the most realistc modern pulse-doppler radar simulation ever created in DCS, decades ahead of ED model and even tho it is not supported right now due to recent events, it is working like a charm. So, why can't ED provide the same quality and stability to its products ?

I wanted to buy the Afghanisthan map, but after trialing it and seeing all of the problems already listed on this thread i decided to wait, iraq was the map that i most expected but i wont purchase that either if the situation don't improve in the near future.

 

2. You have a lack of vision on selling modules. You guys have stated many times that you need to pump early acces modules to keep the cashflow. Why do you start selling the most modern / versatile version of an aircraft at first if you can't deliver all the features on release? Let's take the F-16 for example. You could have developed an F-16A as a start (simpler than a modern F-16, less systems), or if you wanted to start with something more modern, an F-16C block 30, without HMD, without HTS, just a radar, datalink and tgp (free of bugs) and charge full price for it. Then you could further develop all of its subsystems and start working on the F-16C Block 50. Then 1.5 ~ 2 years later you announce the F-16C Block 50 with all the fancy toys (hmd, hts, sniper and more weapons, FM wouldn't be a problem since blk50 is basically a heavier blk30) and charge a fee for those that owns the blk30 purchase the blk50 version and full price for those that dont have any version. I would pay for it, no problem, many would too as many people would love to see more version of current fighters and by doing that the extra cash would serve as an incentive to actually finish the work on the module. You could have done the same thing with the F/A-18, sell the F/A-18A with the weaker engines, no hmd, no DL, then offer an upgraded version - F/A-18C lot 20 with all the fancy toys. You did a similar thing with the Ka-50 and the A10C.

 

3. Digital COMBAT Simulator needs to improve its COMBAT simulation. Especially sensors and A.I tactics. Currently ED radars are not modelled up to 2024 standards. Razbam F-15E, M-2000C and Heatblur F-4E are in the game to show that ED is far behind in the simulation of radars. Even the snail game (thunder game) that is not supposed to be a simulator has a better overall radar simulation -- and free of bugs -- when compared to what ED is offering us. The snail game is decades ahead in the simulation of IR missiles, IR in general, FLIR and countermeasures (both flare and chaff). DCS doesn't model the IRCCM mechanisms of the missiles, the interaction of flares with misiles, although it consider some important variables, still relies on dice roll to give results, and dcs doesn't take into account: flare caliber, flare temperature, flare luminosity, flare wavelenght, also IR missiles don't consider flares as a heat source in DCS, IR missiles can see through clouds... meanwhile, the neighbor has all that and a little more... Countermeasures, chaff doesn't show up in the radar of ED modules and the interaction of chaff with missiles in dcs leaves a lot to be desired.

AI tactics: in that single plane game from the 90s, the AI is able to perform interesting BVR tactics when flying individually or in a group. They fly in formations like Box, Champagne, Vic, they have combat flows like grinders and they can maintain mutual support. When defending a missile, they go cold and do the snake maneuver and keep high speed. In DCS the A.I is basically replicating growling sidewinder moves which for the A.I is super innefective (especially when flying in a group) and unrealistic. No tactics employed, just air quake tactics (that dont work for a.i). In DCS while flying in a group the A.I doesn't employ any of the basic tactics that i listed. Why? I know that we are not supposed to mention or compare DCS to other games in here, and i hope i don't get a warning for this, but it is hard to not compare because in DCS website says that DCS aims to be the most realistic combat flight simulator of the market, so why older games and free games have features that decades ahead compare to what we have? And with this i'm only talking about air-to-air, air, if we mention air-to-ground there are IADS Sam tactics that are basically non existant. Yeah you recently added an option for the SAM to turn off the radar but that is just a minor thing, it is not really an IADS tactic just a self-defense tactic for a specific samsite.

 

Well, i think i have wrote too much for today. The main point of frustration for me here are the bugs. I can wait a little bit for new features (not 5 years), but the long standing bugs are very frustrating!

@NineLine @BIGNEWY I hope you guys take this as a constructive feedack to Eagle Dynamics. I've made some comparisons, but not in a disrespectful way. I care for your product that is why i took my time to write all of this.

 

 

Yeah, I mean the video and this post is it in a nutshell.

I've been in DCS for like 6-7 years at this point, and in the past bought almost all the modules. But this year, its 1/however many. I no longer have any faith that DCS is gonna get fixed in any reasonable amount of time. And each year that drags on with major Core game problems further reinforces that point. Hence I've stopped buying stuff for now. 

Realistically the problem can be broken down into 2 categories, Core game issues and the module issues. And until most of this is addressed I'm not really buying anything new, there is basically no point.

CORE:

Clouds/weather: At this point the core game stuff is pretty unforgivable. Like we don't have weather system anyone can actually use because clouds don't block LOS for the AI or IR missiles.  That is major fail and its been this way for IDK, 4 years or something absurd like that. And weather has major impacts on air ops, be in WW2 (love getting sniped by 88's thru clouds) or modern. 
Ground unit AI:
The main thing here is just how units react to air attack, like no tank commander is gonna sit in an empty field with enemy air/helos around, he's gonna find cover. Nor will that commander be taking pot shots at passing fast jets, he's gonna hope they don't see him or have something more important to do. AI of this sort is not hard to implement. Also some sort of mission/kill/morale kill for units would be great.

Also, giving us more relevant target types than "tonk", probably the worst thing DCS is guilty of is that the A-10 module came first and the focus was bombing tanks-n-toyotas. Whereas in an actual modern air war, you are hitting depots/bridges/C3I etc etc. Yes there can be some CAS, but the focus in DCS is waay too CAS centric. (I also realize that this is partly a mission designer problem).

Air-unit-AI
Its been improved lately but still pretty bad. Especially wingmen. Post above  covers some of it. 

SAM/IADS
This is a huge topic, but at a minimum fix the AI SAM guidance behaviors on a basic level so I can't abuse the existing guidance behavior which is wrong (i.e. always flying lead pursuit, so I can easily fly SAMs into the ground). There is nothing sekrit about this, documents are out there starting from the SA-2 and up through the early double digit sams. I am playing a air-combat game and a big part of that is dealing with SAMs/IADS, and IADS doesn't exist at all in DCS. Also it would be nice to have more actual relevant sams for cold war which would be pretty easy to do as the 3D models can be recycled i.e. early Chapperal, add early manpads Sa-7/redeye/Sa14 etc (who cares if you use the igla model, no one can tell from 5k feet).  

The CORE game is about Air-to-Air combat and Air to ground combat. FOCUS on fixing how that works. 

 

Modules:
Frankly I have far fewer issues with the actual modules in DCS but there some serious general problems that need to be addressed. 
 

Coherency

The biggest general problem is the slapdash plane sets. 0 coherency. WW2 is great example, you have some 1944 allied planes, a 1944 map or two, and then 1945 German unicorn planes (109K? why not a G-6?). Like who the hell thought that was a good idea? And then there is the I-16, like why? I predict that DCS pacific war will be an absolute disaster for the same reason. We have what the F4U (coming 20nevernever) by the look of it, and a hellcat... Well where is the Opfor? Back in the Day when BST was around you at least got "matched" sets of planes which was a really good idea, and I wonder whatever happened to that. Yes, Mig15 vs F86, smart...

Modeling standards and parity. 

For DCS to be good, you have to model things to roughly the same standard across modules. I realize that this is hard and requires work, but its the only reasonable way to do things, especially for MP. Currently there are huge disparities between modules radars and how thats modeled for each jet and this leads to abuse and "gamey" tactics. The F15E radar is basically the gold standard for how modern radars should be modeled. And  frankly no  ED module is even close to that level of fidelity which is tragic. But its also a problem for older modules, i.e. the F5E or the Mig21 radars by 2024 standards are really poorly modeled. Frankly there needs to be a 2-3 year update cycle for older modules that brings them up to modern standards if ED expects to keep selling them. I realize its work, but probably the biggest draw to DCS is the large planeset, especially for MP. 

SENSORS
The other major elephant in the room is sensor modeling. This means radars/RWRs/TGP's/DL's etc. Modern air combat is 100% about these sorts of systems and in general with the exception of the F15E radar and the older F4 radar, sensors in most DCS modules are really poorly done. Frankly its my opinion ED should get out of the modern jet business and focus on WW2 or Korea/VN era because its pretty clear that modern sensors are not a thing ED knows how to do. I realize you guys are "working on it" and its complex, thus far I have 0 faith that it will be done well at all. This is triply true of things like TGP's which at this point are symbiology simulators, none of the major IR pain points are modeled in DCS at all, no Diurnal crossover, no real difference between IR images for day/night, no signal attenuation due to range, ED is using a LWIR (I assume) model developed for the Apache (LWIR sensor), for all the modern jet TGP's which are MWIR with the exception of lantirn.

Modern air combat is ALL about the sensors, and DCS fails pretty hard for the most part here (F15E/F4 exempted). The one saving grace I suppose is that the audience/community doesn't actually have any clue how any of it supposed to work or look. 

Parting shot on maps:

A big problem with the various maps is that they make very little sense. And IDK why ED commissions some maps.  The reason Cauc and Syria are popular are because they are interesting and relevant places to fly, plus cauc is free. But terrain/geography in a relevant place is crucial. Caucus has mountains which make for interesting gameplay. Syria, well also does in various decent spots along with a good airfield layout, plus to Ugra's credit they are constantly improving it and upgrading it, I can't really say the same for any other map (normandy I suppose gets some updates). 

South Atlantic: Fails because no relevant units to do the falklands air war. And while I like the map, the SA part of it, there are no good ways to setup a MP sever with em. 

Sinai: Fails, its a modern map for a war last fought in 1973. Literally the Dev should bust out  the delete tool and look at historical sat imagery and get to deleting. I guess we now have modern conflict there, but its basically JDAM vs toyota at best, which isn't interesting at all. I regret buying it. 

Kola: this may end up being good someday when its done, but the actual fought over part of the map (Rus/finn border) is basically flat. 
 

Afghanistan: A map for bombing toyotas... like I don't get the appeal, nor did I buy it. 

Iraq map: The decision to not have Iranian airbases is mind boggling, literally one of the biggest/longest air war of the 20th century was the iran/iraq war. And DCS at this point at least has enough of the plane set to actually do it right. F4E/F5E/F14 vs Mig21/(well we woulda had a mig23 who knows now)/mig29.  Instead ED inexplicably thinks bombing Toyotas is what people want... 

 

43 minutes ago, Mr_sukebe said:

Personally I really feel for ED.

They're damned if they do and damned if they don't.

The reality is that they have a finite amount of time to conduct development.  As for where that is then focussed, we as the community are the people who influence it.  Quite clearly there's a multitude of "asks", from "give me a new module", to "improve performance", to "finish X" etc.

ED tread a fine line, attempting to balance their workload, such that it meets the majority of customer wishes, whilst hopefully not doing it inefficiently.

 

Clearly, the you-tuber in question has his own specific set of "asks", and that's his prerogative.  Question is, should we de-prioritise getting say Vulkan ready, or introducing the upcoming Mig29?

 

About the only way that I see to help manage expectations is for ED to run a poll every year, such that they can show how they respond to customer priorities.

Yup fair point. ED has at least somewhat fixed the performance issues and VR is now pretty playable. As for the 29 I'm bracing myself to be dissapointed. I doubt ED will get the radar or EO/IR systems right. And if the sensors are gonna be FC3 level, well I already own that jet.  

 

[NineLine]

23 minutes ago, Harlikwin said:

Yup fair point. ED has at least somewhat fixed the performance issues and VR is now pretty playable. As for the 29 I'm bracing myself to be dissapointed. I doubt ED will get the radar or EO/IR systems right. And if the sensors are gonna be FC3 level, well I already own that jet.  

There is two points here I will make as I understand this is your opinion and you are welcome to it. 

1) Any Redfor jet, even export or older variant will still have limitations on what we can or are allowed to do. I know some of you see this as not getting things right or not understanding something but most times its limits to what we can do. I am sure we would all love a 1:1 jet simulation, I shouldn't have to explain why that is not possible. 

2) If we wanted to make FC aircraft have clickable cockpits we could do that very easily. So please, even if it's not your intent, do not be insulting and say we are not doing anything more than that. 

[Beirut]

59 minutes ago, Harlikwin said:

 

South Atlantic: Fails because no relevant units to do the falklands air war. And while I like the map, the SA part of it, there are no good ways to setup a MP sever with em. 

 

The South Atlantic map was a nice change of pace, of region, and of terrain. It showed an interesting new angle to the sim; an out of the box map that had several benefits, not the lest of which is many of us, I think, enjoy DCS as a flightsim and not just a combat flightsim. I don't just enjoy the Hornet because I get to blow **** up - which is admittedly very cool - but because it's the best representation of a Hornet I will ever experience in any sim. I'm sure I'm not the only one who does a lot of flying in DCS simply for the fun of flying. Also, the South Atlantic map is gorgeous and allows for some excellent flights, both combat and just for the fun of flying.

 

I would reiterate that one of the big problems with DCS is messaging. ED does not communicate with its audience very well. While the intent is there, the end result is... mushy.

[Harlikwin]

31 minutes ago, NineLine said:

There is two points here I will make as I understand this is your opinion and you are welcome to it. 

1) Any Redfor jet, even export or older variant will still have limitations on what we can or are allowed to do. I know some of you see this as not getting things right or not understanding something but most times its limits to what we can do. I am sure we would all love a 1:1 jet simulation, I shouldn't have to explain why that is not possible. 

2) If we wanted to make FC aircraft have clickable cockpits we could do that very easily. So please, even if it's not your intent, do not be insulting and say we are not doing anything more than that. 

1) Well, the mig23 was doable for 3rd parties, and the SU-17 is also "maybe" being done by 3rd parties. Frankly I don't care who develops it as long as its good. For ww2 tho, its generally less  of a problem but its head scratching why the decision to not have a coherent plane set exists. 

2) I expect the 29 to have a nice clicky pit, and hopefully the old school soviet era nav system and Lazur datalink (a core feature would be interesting AI wise), its not 100% clear what exactly you are doing with (if its gonna be a export polish/german one, it might be neat to also have an option for a  garmin duct taped to the hud). But ultimately where I will grade you, and alot of other people will grade you will be the Radar and EO/IRST which are very very well known in terms of technical parameters. If the EO sees through clouds for example, well game over. Similarly, the radar had various problems locking stuff in LD/SD situations due to the inadequate processor. I honestly hope you guys can do a good job on it but your track record with sensors to date is frankly poor relative to what 3rd party devs have been able to do. I understand you guys have a mig29 pilot or two on hand to help out with the finer points of what the "limitations" of the sensor systems were and what circumstances they should have problems with.

 

Fundamentally I think you guys really need to evaluate core gameplay loops when thinking about modules. I.e. The whole chinook troop/logi thing from what I understand/hear from others is that its still a pretty big mess. But that was a "good" idea, just needs to be implemented better (And transferred to the other cargo helos). 

For the kiowa/gaz for example, a good gameplay loop to add to the game would have been some sort of additional "scout helo" gameplay. I.e. rather than just making it a poor mans apache it would have been good to have the kiowa be able to direct AI/player airstrikes by other units, or even call in artillery. That would have significantly enhanced the value proposition of the module. 

For various fast jets, well, the big thing is the air to ground or air to air "experience", and that needs work frankly as I noted above. And obviously for good MP you need some sort unit "balance" which well, finally was getting there and in lets say January I was excited about DCS. But then the 3rd party problems have really soured me on DCS.
 

[Harlikwin]

29 minutes ago, Beirut said:

 

The South Atlantic map was a nice change of pace, of region, and of terrain. It showed an interesting new angle to the sim; an out of the box map that had several benefits, not the lest of which is many of us, I think, enjoy DCS as a flightsim and not just a combat flightsim. I don't just enjoy the Hornet because I get to blow **** up - which is admittedly very cool - but because it's the best representation of a Hornet I will ever experience in any sim. I'm sure I'm not the only one who does a lot of flying in DCS simply for the fun of flying. Also, the South Atlantic map is gorgeous and allows for some excellent flights, both combat and just for the fun of flying.

 

I would reiterate that one of the big problems with DCS is messaging. ED does not communicate with its audience very well. While the intent is there, the end result is... mushy.

Frankly I like the map at this point, mainly the SA portion is actually pretty cool to fly thru. But like the conflicts/potential conflicts are basically missing there. So no one really bought it or uses it for MP. 

IMO a good MP map needs to have the following elements:

A relevant conflict (or more than 1). And the planeset to support it. 
Some terrain variety (hills/mountains/valleys for helos etc)
A decent airfield distribution to minimize flight times for the aero-quake crowd (of which I'm part of). 

Cauc works well for this on the latter 2 points, and well you can at least hypothetical a conflict there anywhere from 1950 to the present. 
Syria hits on all 3 very well. 

Sinai,
Well misses on the conflict thing mostly/sorta. 
Terrain is flat/boring
Airfields are sort of ok

SA
Hits on the conflict but misses on the plane set. 
Terrain in SA is good
Airfields are grim, too smol for most fast jets unless you are creative (I managed to TO/land a mig29 at each one), but well... You aren't doing it in a viper.
 

[TheFreshPrince]

What I would love to see is an overhaul of Caucasus. Mariannas is the second free map and it looks so much better. Yet everyone is playing on Caucasus. If it looked better, it could encourage beginners to stay and buy aircraft or other maps. But if you come to DCS the first time and only see Caucasus, you start to think why does this sim look so bad.

[PinkCube]

It feels like there's no ambition left over at ED. No direction or vision. Set in their ways. The business seems so compartmentalised that it's probably impossible to get everyone to have a shared vision. Everyone is just doing their own little thing and doing just enough to not fall off of the gravy train. This pretty much stems from the top and I paraphrase a quote "DCS isn't a profitable business". 

I wish I could be more optimistic and hope DCS picks up again in the future if not for the sake of the 3rd party developers.

[Harlikwin]

7 minutes ago, TheFreshPrince said:

What I would love to see is an overhaul of Caucasus. Mariannas is the second free map and it looks so much better. Yet everyone is playing on Caucasus. If it looked better, it could encourage beginners to stay and buy aircraft or other maps. But if you come to DCS the first time and only see Caucasus, you start to think why does this sim look so bad.

There is a free reskin mod thats good. But it doesn't pass IC IIRC so no MP love. 

[Beirut]

23 minutes ago, Harlikwin said:

Frankly I like the map at this point, mainly the SA portion is actually pretty cool to fly thru. But like the conflicts/potential conflicts are basically missing there. So no one really bought it or uses it for MP. 

IMO a good MP map needs to have the following elements:
 

 

I'm an SP flyer and know little about the MP environment other than I've heard sooo much complaining  - not from you - about "OMG!!! It will split the community!!!" about this, that, and the other thing, that I have little patience or concern for MP needs.

 

I'm just admitting my bias. I'm not saying you're wrong.

[TheFreshPrince]

vor 2 Minuten schrieb Harlikwin:

There is a free reskin mod thats good. But it doesn't pass IC IIRC so no MP love. 

You refer to Barthek I guess? It's better with those textures, but new textures aint gonna cut it. It needs a complete overhaul. Also, mods can't be the solution (especially for beginners who don't know about them). Alternatively buy up Syria and make it the main free map.

[plott1964]

[Harlikwin]

53 minutes ago, Beirut said:

 

I'm an SP flyer and know little about the MP environment other than I've heard sooo much complaining  - not from you - about "OMG!!! It will split the community!!!" about this, that, and the other thing, that I have little patience or concern for MP needs.

 

I'm just admitting my bias. I'm not saying you're wrong.

Well, the MP guys care as much for your opinion as you do theirs. It is what it is. And the splitting the community thing is a real issue in MP. An easy solution would be to offer server licenses like other games do, but thats not how DCS/ED works.