DCS Players Have Had Enough - A youtubers opinion

[NineLine]

42 minutes ago, mikey69420 said:

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...

This isn't a matter of caring, these features would require a complete re-wite of the ME. That said we do have a system right now that can save the state of the ME so you can easily go back to a previous auto-save. Also we have something cool coming on the selection issue.

[Pillowcat]

5 minutes ago, NineLine said:

complete re-wite of the ME.

for UNDO/REDO? Nope. You didn't. It just an act of saving and restore of scene lua code to/from the memory buffer. It is task for a half day for one junior coder.

[NineLine]

8 minutes ago, Pillowcat said:

for UNDO/REDO? Nope. You didn't. It just an act of saving and restore of scene lua code to/from the memory buffer. It is task for a half day for one junior coder.

This is not what I have been told, and I doubt if it was so easy that we would not do it.

A rough description on the explaintion I have seen is the current ME structure does not allow for this function to be easily added.

[mikey69420]

1 hour ago, NineLine said:

This isn't a matter of caring, these features would require a complete re-wite of the ME. That said we do have a system right now that can save the state of the ME so you can easily go back to a previous auto-save. Also we have something cool coming on the selection issue.

Just as @Pillowcat mentioned, what are you on about with the complete re-write of the ME ? You even found the solution to the problem in your own reply, yes there is a system to save the mission and load it back up, THEN IMPLEMENT THAT FUNCTIONALITY INTO A BUTTON AND CALL IT UNDO/REDO. Even if it isn't a fancy solution, do something, show you (ED) cares.

And even if we assume that for some reason the mission editor really needs a complete rewrite, what is ED waiting for, it's been 20+ years ? Do you seriously see yourselves in 20 more years telling people that same bs excuse ?

If anything, your response has hammered the point that you people at ED don't care about the ME, yes it's a horribly outdated ME and if you are saying it is outdated to the point it is impossible to add a simple undo/redo button, what are you waiting for ? Rewrite the damn thing, do what bohemia interactive has done with it's eden editor in arma, make a brand new editor. Your team is certainly motivated enough to keep pumping out EA products but when you need to work on the core game, on something that won't reward you with quick cash, suddenly no one at ED seems up for it, surprising isn't it ?

You're not fooling anyone, ED doesn't care about the ME. If it cared you wouldn't try to justify the absence of the most universally basic features in the core component of your so called sandbox simulation, the mission editor.



P.S: Excuse my tone, nothing personal against anyone, I am simply criticizing your company's decisions and I appreciate your engagement in this thread NineLine.

[BIGNEWY]

On 10/28/2024 at 9:43 AM, mikey69420 said:

If anything, your response has hammered the point that you people at ED don't care about the ME, yes it's a horribly outdated ME and if you are saying it is outdated to the point it is impossible to add a simple undo/redo button, what are you waiting for ? Rewrite the damn thing, do what bohemia interactive has done with it's eden editor in arma, make a brand new editor. Your team is certainly motivated enough to keep pumping out EA products but when you need to work on the core game, on something that won't reward you with quick cash, suddenly no one at ED seems up for it, surprising isn't it ?

It is very easy to come here on the forum and make wishes or demands and then claim we do not care, but we have to deal with the reality of the situation and work with the tools and resources we have. We are not going to waste thousands of man hours of work. 

[mikey69420]

6 minutes ago, BIGNEWY said:

It is very easy to come here on the forum and make wishes or demands and then claim we do not care, but we have to deal with the reality of the situation and work with the tools and resources we have. We are not going to waste thousands of man man hours of work. 

So for you, making your editor more usable and bringing it up to modern standards is "wasting thousands of man hours", thanks for hammering my point in even more.

[Dragon1-1]

11 minutes ago, BIGNEWY said:

We are not going to waste thousands of man man hours of work. 

No, you are not going to. In fact, rewriting ME would likely save you even more in long run, considering your modules typically include missions, too. Right now, ME is difficult to use, the scripting is brittle and putting together anything but simplest missions is an exercise in frustration. Both campaign creators and users would be well served by an updated editor, and you could probably drop a lot of technical debt as well, helping the coders. Time spent working on a replacement would be well spent indeed.

[BIGNEWY]

4 minutes ago, mikey69420 said:

So for you, making your editor more usable and bringing it up to modern standards is "wasting thousands of man hours", thanks for hammering my point in even more.

We want to make improvements, of course. But " rewriting " everything as mentioned above isnt going to happen. 

[SharpeXB]

6 hours ago, NineLine said:

Spotting dots should look like nothing is turned on, if that makes sense.

That’s a good goal. 

[TheFreshPrince]

vor 6 Stunden schrieb NineLine:

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 exactly proves my point I mentioned above. DCS is getting lost in overly complicated details. Why not focus on improving the rendering in general for everyone? Creating the dots has generated new problems that you're trying to fix by making it even more complicated by trying to create a seperate solution for different hardware setups. I can imagine how much time this takes. And what happens when Vulcan comes out? Will you start the whole process over again? What when new hardware comes out, new resolutions, etc.? Sounds like trying to build a quick fix instead of something for the future.

The mission editor has been mentioned now, I approve that it has been developed further a lot (it actually has). But it has also become much more complex and complicated, so much actually that you need to study it in detail to create simple missions. So has it really been improved?

It also proves a new point, namely that DCS is being developed further and further, but in the core still stays the same thing and the only way to develop it seems to be to add new stuff on top of the old stuff or to change old stuff. It's like you're still using Windows 2000, but with added features of Windows 10. Difficult topic, but I see this critically.

[JuiceIsLoose]

I want to clarify, this post is not intended for the community managers, NineLine or Bignewy, but rather is targeted at ED Management. This post is not specifically about the bugs in modules or items listed below. But is intended to show a lack of care from Eagle Dynamics Management toward the community that purchases their modules.

Eagle Dynamics Management, do you truly care for your customer's who have spent money on your products? If so, PLEASE SHOW IT.

There are a number of issues to the CORE of DCS that have not been realized, and even more so have shown no progress in years. There are countless items that could be listed, but some of the larger items that affect DCS in a larger view than just one module are provided.

1. Dynamic Campaign

nullAbove is a post from an Eagle Dynamics Team Member on January 17,2019. Stating in regards to the dynamic campaign "This is a very high-priority item for us with good progress. However, this is a highly complex undertaking and it will take time, but certainly not "5 years"."

As of today, this post is 5 years, 9 months, and 11 days old. And there has been no progress on the DCS Dynamic Campaign. I'm sorry, newsletters with screenshots and saying "we are working on it" and "its a complex task" do not make up for 5 years and 9 months worth of development. Show some sort of progress. Show a video of a developer troubleshooting it, show a video of the buggy version you are trying to debug, show some sort of actual progress to show it has been actually worked on. Showing screenshots of the F10 map and writing a paragraph about how hard and complex it is, is not progress. Does Eagle Dynamics have anything to show it has actually been worked on other than just words at this point?

 

2. ATC

 

Above is a post from an Eagle Dynamics Team Member on February 9, 2016 discussing that ATC does not currently work and that it "Will resolved with new ATC system". Again, similar points to the Dynamic Campaign. Where has there been any progress shown on ATC? It has been 8 years, 8 months, and 19 days since this post was made, and what progress does Eagle Dynamics show? Newsletters claiming it is being worked on, and is a complex task, again, do not cut it. Show something that shows some sort of actual progress. If it is buggy and doesn't work flawlessly? At least show us that something has been done in the last 8 years, 8 months, and 19 days.

3. Supercarrier

Above is a post from an Eagle Dynamics Team Member on April 1, 2020 discussing what features are to come with the Super Carrier Module. There are a number of these items that have not been worked on since this post in April 1, 2020. Ready Room, Interactive LSO Controls, Plane directors, Rendered hanger deck, Emergency barrier net, Deck crew that move to avoid collisions with aircraft, where is the progress on these items? Plane directors and barrier net have been talked about in forum posts and newsletters, but there is nothing Eagle Dynamics can show for progress on these items. The issue with COMMS with the Supercarrier can also be included, as they do not work, but this ties into the point above about ATC. 

The ATC issue is a core issue that affects ALL modules. When a user purchases a module in early access the intent is that that money is used to further the development of that module and the core game that it lives in. I do not understand how Eagle Dynamics can state that modules are "Out of Early Access" when they cannot even properly communicate with ATC. That is a core element of flight simulation.

As far as the supercarrier module, users that are purchasing this module in specific deserve to have their funds paid for Early Access actually go toward development of this module. And where has any progress on the Supercarrier been? Again, actual progress, not words in a newsletter describing how challenging the process is.

Finally, the community managers communicate that they "...listen to lots of feedback constantly and pass it on to the team...". Please show the users that Eagle Dynamics Management actually listens to the community. Eagle Dynamics as a company has a history of continuing to send out new modules to sell without finishing old modules. For instance, releasing FC2024 when numerous bug existing in the FC3 planes. Releasing a pre-order for Iraq while Afghanistan still has not received an update since it's release. In the forum post for Afghanistan it is stated plainly "Regions will be release in approximately three-month intervals". Now, we are only told that these regions will be delayed in the forum of a newly released pre-order for the IRAQ map. And this was only after users complained that Eagle Dynamics is pushing new content without providing any updates on previous modules.

Eagle Dynamics Management, you are losing the faith in your customer's. People have paid money for you modules, both early access modules and out of Early Access Modules, that do not work within the game, and yet you continue to push only new content without showing any actual progress on the promises you have made the community. I'm sorry, but Newsletters describing how hard something is doesn't show progress. Show us something, that these items are actually being worked on in some way. Have the developers actually share what they are working on, not just having Community Managers state they have talked to the teams. Again, this is not to hate on the community managers, this is to ask Eagle Dynamics Management to do something to show the community you actually care about following through with your promises.

Eagle Dynamics Management, I ask that you actually listen to your customers. And show us that you care.

 

 

 

[BIGNEWY]

17 minutes ago, JuiceIsLoose said:

I want to clarify, this post is not intended for the community managers, NineLine or Bignewy, but rather is targeted at ED Management. This post is not specifically about the bugs in modules or items listed below. But is intended to show a lack of care from Eagle Dynamics Management toward the community that purchases their modules.

Eagle Dynamics Management, do you truly care for your customer's who have spent money on your products? If so, PLEASE SHOW IT.

There are a number of issues to the CORE of DCS that have not been realized, and even more so have shown no progress in years. There are countless items that could be listed, but some of the larger items that affect DCS in a larger view than just one module are provided.

1. Dynamic Campaign

nullAbove is a post from an Eagle Dynamics Team Member on January 17,2019. Stating in regards to the dynamic campaign "This is a very high-priority item for us with good progress. However, this is a highly complex undertaking and it will take time, but certainly not "5 years"."

As of today, this post is 5 years, 9 months, and 11 days old. And there has been no progress on the DCS Dynamic Campaign. I'm sorry, newsletters with screenshots and saying "we are working on it" and "its a complex task" do not make up for 5 years and 9 months worth of development. Show some sort of progress. Show a video of a developer troubleshooting it, show a video of the buggy version you are trying to debug, show some sort of actual progress to show it has been actually worked on. Showing screenshots of the F10 map and writing a paragraph about how hard and complex it is, is not progress. Does Eagle Dynamics have anything to show it has actually been worked on other than just words at this point?

 

2. ATC

 

Above is a post from an Eagle Dynamics Team Member on February 9, 2016 discussing that ATC does not currently work and that it "Will resolved with new ATC system". Again, similar points to the Dynamic Campaign. Where has there been any progress shown on ATC? It has been 8 years, 8 months, and 19 days since this post was made, and what progress does Eagle Dynamics show? Newsletters claiming it is being worked on, and is a complex task, again, do not cut it. Show something that shows some sort of actual progress. If it is buggy and doesn't work flawlessly? At least show us that something has been done in the last 8 years, 8 months, and 19 days.

3. Supercarrier

Above is a post from an Eagle Dynamics Team Member on April 1, 2020 discussing what features are to come with the Super Carrier Module. There are a number of these items that have not been worked on since this post in April 1, 2020. Ready Room, Interactive LSO Controls, Plane directors, Rendered hanger deck, Emergency barrier net, Deck crew that move to avoid collisions with aircraft, where is the progress on these items? Plane directors and barrier net have been talked about in forum posts and newsletters, but there is nothing Eagle Dynamics can show for progress on these items. The issue with COMMS with the Supercarrier can also be included, as they do not work, but this ties into the point above about ATC. 

The ATC issue is a core issue that affects ALL modules. When a user purchases a module in early access the intent is that that money is used to further the development of that module and the core game that it lives in. I do not understand how Eagle Dynamics can state that modules are "Out of Early Access" when they cannot even properly communicate with ATC. That is a core element of flight simulation.

As far as the supercarrier module, users that are purchasing this module in specific deserve to have their funds paid for Early Access actually go toward development of this module. And where has any progress on the Supercarrier been? Again, actual progress, not words in a newsletter describing how challenging the process is.

Finally, the community managers communicate that they "...listen to lots of feedback constantly and pass it on to the team...". Please show the users that Eagle Dynamics Management actually listens to the community. Eagle Dynamics as a company has a history of continuing to send out new modules to sell without finishing old modules. For instance, releasing FC2024 when numerous bug existing in the FC3 planes. Releasing a pre-order for Iraq while Afghanistan still has not received an update since it's release. In the forum post for Afghanistan it is stated plainly "Regions will be release in approximately three-month intervals". Now, we are only told that these regions will be delayed in the forum of a newly released pre-order for the IRAQ map. And this was only after users complained that Eagle Dynamics is pushing new content without providing any updates on previous modules.

Eagle Dynamics Management, you are losing the faith in your customer's. People have paid money for you modules, both early access modules and out of Early Access Modules, that do not work within the game, and yet you continue to push only new content without showing any actual progress on the promises you have made the community. I'm sorry, but Newsletters describing how hard something is doesn't show progress. Show us something, that these items are actually being worked on in some way. Have the developers actually share what they are working on, not just having Community Managers state they have talked to the teams. Again, this is not to hate on the community managers, this is to ask Eagle Dynamics Management to do something to show the community you actually care about following through with your promises.

Eagle Dynamics Management, I ask that you actually listen to your customers. And show us that you care.

 

 

 

 

Threads merged - I get you are frustrated but making new threads isnt going to help. 

We have explained the work takes a long time no amount of complaining about it is going to help. 

All the resources we can use are being used on our open projects, when they are ready we will share news, or publish dev blogs in the newsletters. 

As soon as a feature is completed and tested internally we push them to public builds. 

Claiming we do not care is just silly when all of us in the team have devoted our working lives to making DCS better. 

thank you 

[Hog_driver]

I'm not an expert, but I understand that for a decent dynamic campaign, you need a decent AI, so that air and ground units could behave in a reasonable and believable way.

Is this being worked on? If so, can it be implemented (even gradually) into the core game already?

I tried to play Operation Liberation some time ago, but aircraft AI was so dumb (attack aircraft not using countermeasures, attacking AAA sites instead of their primary targets) that I had enough after just a few hours. Really, I don't need new maps to watch braindead AI and get frustrated. I've already invested enough money into DCS, I'll wait until some QoL improvements are introduced.

Edited October 28, 2024 by Hog_driver

[BIGNEWY]

Just now, Hog_driver said:

I'm not an expert, but I understand that for a decent dynamic campaign, you need a decent AI, so that air and ground units could behave in a reasonable and believable way.

Is this being worked on? If so, can it be implemented (even gradually) into the core game?

I tried to play Operation Liberation some time ago, but aircraft AI was so dumb (attack aircraft not using countermeasures, attacking AAA sites instead of their primary targets) that I had enough after just a few hours. Really, I don't need new maps to watch braindead AI and get frustrated. I've already invested enough money into DCS, I'll wait until some QoL improvements are introduced.

There are many elements to the dynamic campaign, especially regarding AI, I don't think we will see it added gradually as it is specific to the dynamic campaign, and it is not ready yet.

AI needs to be setup correctly to work in any mission, and they are not always. If you see AI acting dumb and can show us in a short track we will follow it up, Nineline and I have done hundreds of reports from the community for AI over the years and its helped a lot. 

thank you 

[Hog_driver]

1 minute ago, BIGNEWY said:

If you see AI acting dumb and can show us in a short track we will follow it up, Nineline and I have done hundreds of reports from the community for AI over the years and its helped a lot. 

 

Sorry, it was many moons and updates ago, I don't have any tracks anymore. I can just tell you that a pair of Hornets was supposed to attack a fuel depot and they were jumped by a pair of MiGs or Sukhois. The Hornets didn't take any evasive action or use chaff/flares and were promptly shot down. I sent another pair to bomb the same target and at least one of them kept attacking a ZU-23 site (but missed).

[BIGNEWY]

2 minutes ago, Hog_driver said:

Sorry, it was many moons and updates ago, I don't have any tracks anymore. I can just tell you that a pair of Hornets was supposed to attack a fuel depot and they were jumped by a pair of MiGs or Sukhois. The Hornets didn't take any evasive action or use chaff/flares and were promptly shot down. I sent another pair to bomb the same target and at least one of them kept attacking a ZU-23 site (but missed).

It will depend what settings they have been given in the advanced way point actions, they may have been told not to evade or use counter measures. That is why we will always ask for a track or miz so we can see what is going on. 

thank you 

[Hog_driver]

Just now, BIGNEWY said:

It will depend what settings they have been given in the advanced way point actions, they may have been told not to evade or use counter measures. 

I see. Well, I certainly didn't tell them not to evade or ignore their primary target. That's what I'm talking about, "a decent AI" should make them evade/use CMs without any additional actions on my part. Also, to prioritize some (important) targets above other (less important) targets, such as some AAA guns.

[MiG21bisFishbedL]

20 hours 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 appreciate 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 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 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 better 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 end up having use 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.

 

Underrated post.

These are actual issues I'd hold more concern for. Although, I'm kind of a coinflip on 3. I'm of the idea of you make the variant that is most accessible and call it good.

The maps and how ED handles maps is real silly, in my opinion. Chopping them up into bits to sell is not the answer and, frankly, a terrible idea. It's one of the frequent complaints I heard about FC3 for the longest time. ED's not offering any real value or convenience by ONLY selling the F-15 or Su-27. It just seems likew a newcomers' trap to squeeze a little extra money out of them. Actually, a better idea would be price reductions across the board for maps to encourage people to pick them up. Moving product should be the #1 concern of any digital storefront since you don't have to worry about inventory. Get more maps out into the wild, get more people using them, and get more people actually playing on places like Sinai.

At the present, the only maps I can ever recommend newbies get are Persian Gulf and Syria, if at all.

Edited October 28, 2024 by MiG21bisFishbedL

[NineLine]

1 hour ago, MiG21bisFishbedL said:

The maps and how ED handles maps is real silly, in my opinion. Chopping them up into bits to sell is not the answer and, frankly, a terrible idea.

I get that many people believe this, but we also know that money is tight for everyone these days, we thought offering the ability to buy part of a map if you cannot afford the entire map was something that could help. People are buying the parts, and how successful it will be time will tell, but I don't think adding different purchase options is a bad thing, especially considering those that want to buy the whole map can still do that the same as always. 

Again, same with selling individual FC3 planes, it's a quick and cheap way to get into DCS, again if you have the money or know you want to commit to DCS the entire pack is there and an option, options are never bad. I really do not get the concept of being mad at offering cheaper ways to get into DCS. 

 

1 hour ago, Hog_driver said:

I see. Well, I certainly didn't tell them not to evade or ignore their primary target. That's what I'm talking about, "a decent AI" should make them evade/use CMs without any additional actions on my part. Also, to prioritize some (important) targets above other (less important) targets, such as some AAA guns.

Without seeing the exact example its hard to say. If you give the AI something to do, they tend to get stuck on that so you have to balance out what they are doing and what you want them to do. In many cases, the AI should "think" better but within reason. Considering all the possible scenarios and resulting actions that can happen on any given mission, programming all these in a while probably possible could make DCS unplayable performance-wise, also you would have AI making decisions maybe you never wanted or thought about. So its always a balancing act. 

[MiG21bisFishbedL]

1 hour ago, NineLine said:

I get that many people believe this, but we also know that money is tight for everyone these days, we thought offering the ability to buy part of a map if you cannot afford the entire map was something that could help. People are buying the parts, and how successful it will be time will tell, but I don't think adding different purchase options is a bad thing, especially considering those that want to buy the whole map can still do that the same as always. 

Again, same with selling individual FC3 planes, it's a quick and cheap way to get into DCS, again if you have the money or know you want to commit to DCS the entire pack is there and an option, options are never bad. I really do not get the concept of being mad at offering cheaper ways to get into DCS. 

 

 

Understandable, but quick and cheap isn't always the most dependable way to move product. The DCS ecosystem, I feel, doesn't really allow that to truly succeed. Instead, the push should be for value more than anything. We're all going to be accepting that we're spending a premium on additions, so it's better to make the customer feel very confident in their purchase than it is to make them feel like impulse buying.

The reality is that DCS' audience isn't going to grow all that much, if at all, by these piecemeal approaches and ED understands that, no doubt. But, I feel you'd be much farther ahead if you were to cut prices on maps to encourage their sales more than anything.

I really enjoy Sinai, but I can rarely find servers running it as much as Syria or PG. South Atlantic and Kola offered much needed greener and Kola's a theatre I'm interested in, but only 1 person I know owns it. I'm not asking for charity, obviously, but cutting the entry fee to these maps would increase their user share could easily prove to be well worth it. After all, these are sales that would have either waited for a price reduction or never have occurred to begin with. It'd be worth it, even if ED has to stomach the lion's share of the price reduction.

After all, if I'm looking at Kola (finished, not EA) for $70 US and then I'm also looking at the Hornet at $80 US, what's going to give me more enjoyment? The aircraft. I can fly that on the Caucuses without worrying about having to find a server or good campaign.

So, realistically, while trying to make things cheaper for us is appreciated, giving us better value for our purchases is better. Price reductions over all maps that might not be as cheap as selling them piecemeal, but making customers actually feel like they got a lot for their money will go a lot farther than just a lower sticker price.

I think this would be a lot more beneficial to the DCS ecosystem than if ED and RB announced that they were best friends forever again. It doesn't get you clicks with outlandish outrage bait titles, sadly.

Also, a more detailed roadmap specifically dedicated to back-end developmental goals would be a very good idea. We've been waiting for AI behavior fixes for how long?

Edited October 28, 2024 by MiG21bisFishbedL

[Sr.]

Whatever happened to Vulkan, which I vaguely recall was loosely promised Q3 in early 2022?

[buceador]

40 minutes ago, Sr. said:

Whatever happened to Vulkan, which I vaguely recall was loosely promised Q3 in early 2022?

@BIGNEWY Has said "Vulkan is in progress, no ETA to share yet." 

Edited October 28, 2024 by buceador

[Aapje]

4 hours ago, MiG21bisFishbedL said:

The maps and how ED handles maps is real silly, in my opinion. Chopping them up into bits to sell is not the answer and, frankly, a terrible idea. [...] Get more maps out into the wild, get more people using them, and get more people actually playing on places like Sinai.

At the present, the only maps I can ever recommend newbies get are Persian Gulf and Syria, if at all.

It seems like a missed opportunity to not release a low-resolution base map for free and then sell the high-res version/sections. That way the value is much greater for those who buy, since they can actually use the map to play against their friends and/or in servers with enough players. And players who don't buy the high-res map also get more value out of their other purchases. And it is also highly beneficial to campaign makers, who have a much bigger audience if their campaign features these maps.

 

[MiG21bisFishbedL]

1 hour ago, Aapje said:

It seems like a missed opportunity to not release a low-resolution base map for free and then sell the high-res version/sections. That way the value is much greater for those who buy, since they can actually use the map to play against their friends and/or in servers with enough players. And players who don't buy the high-res map also get more value out of their other purchases. And it is also highly beneficial to campaign makers, who have a much bigger audience if their campaign features these maps.

 

Honestly, it worked pretty well for ArmA 2 once upon a time. I imagine it'd be a REAL hard sell to the company, but wow you can't do much worse than the current approach to maps, at least.

[mikey69420]

5 hours ago, BIGNEWY said:

 

Threads merged - I get you are frustrated but making new threads isnt going to help. 

We have explained the work takes a long time no amount of complaining about it is going to help. 

All the resources we can use are being used on our open projects, when they are ready we will share news, or publish dev blogs in the newsletters. 

As soon as a feature is completed and tested internally we push them to public builds. 

Claiming we do not care is just silly when all of us in the team have devoted our working lives to making DCS better. 

thank you 

BN, I get you're speaking on behalf of your company but be real here, you must admit DCS has issues.

You can claim your company works as hard as they can but no amount of effort can offset the bad decisions your company has made and are still making.

Of course, I'm sure everyone at ED is working hard to pump out the next EA product but you gotta read the room, look at the comments in the recent Iraq pre-order video, look at the comments in this thread, look at the community posts on various forums. Will you just actually properly finish your early access products before pushing out more? Will you actually make the core DCS experience better ? 

Suddenly no one at your company is up for these tasks. All your main modules, be it the ah64, the f16, the fa18 and especially the suppercarrier saw their updates come out at an agonizingly slow pace sometime after their initial release, as an example, take the a10cII, I remember how you all took more than a whole year to add the radio. And don't even get me started on your older or more niche modules like combined arms or the mosquito.

What about the core dcs experience ? You have been teasing dynamic campaign for a few years, nothing to show for it still. Ground ai is broken. ATC is pretty much non existent. There is little single player content available except for paid campaigns that get broken every patch because of the horrendous ai. Ohh yes, there are also the missions made by the community which carry the single player experience in my opinion. How do you reward these mission makers ? By leaving them with your mission editor from the nineties that hasn't even got drag select or an undo redo button because that would be "wasting thousands of man hours" to implement a undo/redo button or drag select in a 2024 simulator. 

Don't get me started on the feud with RB because I know you'll want to ban me for even mentioning the name.

I am commenting as a customer who has paid more than 500$ on your platform, I do care about your product, really. But please, don't try to make us look like we are whining babies that can't comprehend the work you put in. At the end of the day, we are left with the product you present to us and given some of it's core and module features have remained broken, outdated or unfinished/missing for years while you manage to release new EA modules back to back, well, excuse us for not being very satisfied or having doubts about your product and the direction it is heading towards.