DCS Players Have Had Enough - A youtubers opinion

[BIGNEWY]

37 minutes ago, mikey69420 said:

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we are left with the product you present to us and given some of it's core and module features have remained broken, outdated or unfinished/missing for years while you manage to release new EA modules back to back, well, excuse us for not being very satisfied or having doubts about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.

We’re truly sorry to hear you’re feeling frustrated with the pace of development. Although we understand the desire for faster progress, development during early access is a gradual process, and we don’t foresee that changing. Early access allows us to share new content with you sooner and gather feedback, which helps us improve. Participation in early access is completely optional, and if you feel more comfortable waiting before making any further purchases, we completely understand—waiting may be the best option for some.

Early access lets us offer you content to enjoy while it's still in development, allowing us to gather valuable input. Without it, we wouldn’t be able to deliver new content as frequently, which wouldn’t be viable for the business. While some view us as having a unique position, others have tried and found the niche challenging to sustain. Our approach may feel slower at times, but it’s what allows us to keep DCS progressing for this specialized community.

We assure you that work is ongoing, even if it sometimes isn’t as fast-paced as some might wish. Our team is dedicated and working hard with the resources available, facing the usual challenges of any organization—vacations, occasional illness, and other operational needs. Our changelogs demonstrate this ongoing effort and show that projects are steadily advancing.

We welcome open discussion about RAZBAM, and there is a dedicated forum section and thread for it. Please feel free to use that space for those discussions to keep this thread on topic. We don’t impose bans lightly and encourage everyone to follow the forum rules. If you have questions about moderation, please feel free to reach out to us directly.

Thank you

 

[Aapje]

1 hour ago, BIGNEWY said:

While some view us as having a unique position, others have tried and found the niche challenging to sustain. Our approach may feel slower at times, but it’s what allows us to keep DCS progressing for this specialized community.

The question is whether this is a sustainable approach. If people start to feel that their spending is not giving them what they want, or even feel deceived, then they may stop spending. And it also generates bad PR when lots of people have negative things to say about the product. It can even result in a death spiral where to maintain income when people leave, more choices are made that maximize short term income, over long term health of the project.

Futhermore, should the game focus on a 'specialized community', or should it focus a bit more on growing the community? Perhaps that requires choices that return a bit less income in the short term, but grow the player base and in the long term, result in more players that are happy to keep spending.

1 hour ago, BIGNEWY said:

We assure you that work is ongoing, even if it sometimes isn’t as fast-paced as some might wish.

As some of the posters have shown, statements have been made by ED employees that create expectations, which then haven't been met. I think that not acknowledging this, but implying that customers have unrealistic expectations through no fault of ED, is a bit of a cop-out. 

It's not really fair to set expectations by making statements and then chastising people for having those expectations.

Quote

 Although we understand the desire for faster progress

You keep repeating this, but I see people complaining that some of the goals that you are working towards don't seem that appealing, like making maps that have relatively little use or making a questionable dot system.

Getting to the finish line fast is as much about speed as it is about going in the right direction.

Edited October 28, 2024 by Aapje

[NineLine]

8 minutes ago, Aapje said:

The question is whether this is a sustainable approach. If people start to feel that their spending is not giving them what they want, or even feel deceived, then they may stop spending. And it also generates bad PR when lots of people have negative things to say about the product. It can even result in a death spiral where to maintain income when people leave, more choices are made that maximize short term income, over long term health of the project.

Futhermore, should the game focus on a 'specialized community', or should it focus a bit more on growing the community? Perhaps that requires choices that return a bit less income in the short term, but grow the player base and in the long term, result in more players that are happy to keep spending.

As some of the posters have shown, statements have been made by ED employees that create expectations, which then haven't been met. I think that not acknowledging this, but implying that customers have unrealistic expectations through no fault of ED, is a bit of a cop-out. 

It's not really fair to set expectations by making statements and then chastising people for having those expectations.

You keep repeating this, but I see people complaining that some of the goals that you are working towards don't seem that appealing, like making maps that have relatively little use or making a questionable dot system.

Getting to the finish line fast is as much about speed as it is about going in the right direction.

 

I am not sure I understand some of your statements here.

This isn't a common market and in many cases, we are blazing the path, we might make mistakes or make the wrong choice but we try to right the ship and keep moving forward.

What DCS was 10 years ago has adapted well beyond a specialized community, there are many different player types using DCS now and that is based on how we have grown and adapted to existing and new players. 

We have made statements that set expectations many times, and we have missed on them, I don't think we have ever denied this, we do make sure to point out that things can change, outside or unforeseen issues, etc. I don't think we have ever put this on the customer, if anything it's our ability to educate our customer on how long something takes or the challenges that may pop up that might be the biggest issue. But I do not see us blaming customers. Most times when a customer is impatient it's only out of excitement or need for something, I cant see us blaming or being mad about this. I don't think any chastising is going on.

Not everything we work on is appealing to every gamer, this is what DCS is, it offers many different ways to play, I am sure there are a lot of people who are not interested in the F6F, I am sure there are a lot that are. You cannot put everyone into one hole and see that is where everything should go. Iraq and Afghanistan are two very important theatres, not having them would be a shame. Not having maps like Vietnam or places in Europe would also be a shame. Also, remember that ED also has a professional side and sometimes projects will drift into DCS based on the needs there. 

[Aapje]

27 minutes ago, NineLine said:

Not everything we work on is appealing to every gamer, this is what DCS is, it offers many different ways to play,

So do you consider map releases successful that see almost no use in MP? At that point that map is not just unappealing to a subset of players, but the evidence suggests that the map is not usable for an entire game mode of DCS. I would suggest that such a situation, with many players remarking that buying maps gives very little return on what they cost, might require a bit of a rethink.

27 minutes ago, NineLine said:

You cannot put everyone into one hole and see that is where everything should go. Iraq and Afghanistan are two very important theatres, not having them would be a shame. Not having maps like Vietnam or places in Europe would also be a shame.

Yes, but making lots of products that stay in early access for a very long time, or have serious issues after release, is also a shame. At the end of the day, you can't do everything and choices have to be made between different alternatives that all have their pros and cons. In this thread a lot of people are making suggestions that some choices should perhaps be made differently.

And spreading yourselves thin doesn't necessarily mean that you deliver more, since there is a cost to getting back into something you set aside for a while, and for keeping track of a lot of half-finished projects.

27 minutes ago, NineLine said:

Also, remember that ED also has a professional side and sometimes projects will drift into DCS based on the needs there. 

I assume you mean B2B, because the consumer gaming market is also professional, as most of those gamers do pay you.

[Beirut]

For the most part I'm very happy with DCS. I am very happy to have access to a buffet of well made high-tech planes and choppers to fly and several really good maps to enjoy. Not to mention all the tech-goodies sprinkled about here and there. And the excellent free-trial system which s great! That said...

 

Putting out the Iraq map on pre-order prior to the Afghan map getting significantly more love does legitimately raise a few eyebrows. How many jigsaw puzzle maps with months-to-come and perhaps years-to-come pieces are we going to have at once? And the "it's separate teams" doesn't mean much to me. I'm not paying separate teams - I'm paying one company.

 

Maybe it's more a lack of clear communication and relatable goals than an actual flaw in how the maps are put out. As it is:

 

Here's a map and the pieces of will come out separately in several months and there may be delays and... and...

And here's another map and pieces of will come out separately in several months and there may be delays and... and...

And here's another map and pieces of will come out separately in several months and there may be delays and... and...

 

it's a bit too much in the wind. Maybe something more concrete would help. But I'm still very supportive of the sim, it's at least 90% of my flightsim time and dollars spent, has been for years. But communication on the part of ED hasn't always been great. I think that's a fair thing to say. 

[Slippa]

ED, I think you’re lucky to be getting this sort of constructive criticism and genuine feedback.

I also think ‘the team’ should have a little read of it too and be grateful you’re not having to pay for it. We are.

Like a lot of others, I’ve spent far too much money on DCS and I’ve invested back into community stuff to support the campaign makers too. Anyone that’s had a dip into the ME realises how much buggering about it must be to get all that done and as mentioned, we’re afraid of what’s gonna be busted after every update. A lot of things need a lot of work. They’re a real leap of faith for some of us those updates. Of course we need em, who knows, sometimes slip-ups happen while coding and they actually fix something but not often.  - Alright, lighten up, I’m sort of kidding but I’m seriously still hoping to be able to run this thing in MP with more than a few choppers without it either stuttering like a jibber-jabber or collapsing altogether. One of those updates created that, I’m certain of it.

I won’t go on and on, plenty of people make a lot of points in this thread that I agree with. I just think instead of trying to juggle too much, finish something properly. I’d rather wait for something and find it in fully working order when I buy it. You’re taking my money in full and working order aren’t you. I’m not offering early access deals where you may or may not ever see the full price. I don’t ask you to open a thread and beg for the final payment either so I’d be happy if you’d just serve something that’s properly cooked. If EA is working, keep doing it but offer something that’s complete too that works as it should.

It can read like a battering at times but people do have valid complaints. So, I do appreciate that when it works, DCS is the dogs clackers despite it all. There’s still plenty of joy to be had in different ways and the whining doesn’t always come from a crappy place. It still flies better for me than anything else which only makes the niggles matter more. A lot of the time you’re missing the point though and just not accepting that certain things are fundamentally important to have working properly. Stuff like the ME is a foundation. Anything built on those dodgy foundations is gonna fall apart at some point. 
 

P.S. Thanks and praises for putting that Mossie tail-wheel right in the end .

[RaisedByWolves]

This video game and the company that invented it are basically dying. Its sad. But it’s evolution, and DCS isn’t evolving.  You look at all of the half baked modules that are in “early development” and see how they rarely ever leave that phase and yet they keep putting out more.  I’ve had enjoyable times with this “game” because that is what it is. It is not a simulator.  I wish ED success but at this time I have uninstalled it and maybe someday I’ll revisit again. It’s never ending updates that cause issues, etc. why does it take ED longer to build a video game supercarrier than Newport news can build a real supercarrier?  Nevermind all of the other things they say are in the works, and “it takes time.” Spent a decent portion of one of my paychecks on modules, but it lost that loving feeling, Mav.

 

im sure the moderators will be flustered but I don’t even care. Hats off to you people for carrying the water for DCS. Hope they pay you  well, or whatever. Maybe they only charge you quarter price for these never ending modules in developement.
 

 

Wish you all luck and hopefully your “passion” doesn’t fade!

 

I do enjoy reading the forums. Maybe I’ll read them again next year, I dunno

Edited October 29, 2024 by RaisedByWolves

[Beirut]

35 minutes ago, RaisedByWolves said:

This video game and the company that invented it are basically dying.

 

I don't agree. With the likes of ORBX getting involved and Heatblur putting out ground breaking modules, things look pretty good.

 

What is missing, I think, is some kind of goal that can be clearly defined. Even as a sandbox flightsim, there should be some kind of goal, some kind of end result that can be both expressed and understood and give the buyer something to kind of lean on. The civvy sim has that. The goal, whether actually attainable or not, is clearly expressed and easy to understand: "We'll give you the whole world and every plane that exists."  Well... okay, good luck with that. But there it is.

 

I really think it's a communication problem. If we're to wait months and years for things we pay for you be delivered in full, it would be good to have something more concrete to lean on as opposed to an ever growing list of "Buy now, wait months, wait years. Wash, rinse, repeat", with no end in sight, so to speak. As stated, it's a bit too much in the wind. Part of the story just seems to be missing.

[MiG21bisFishbedL]

18 minutes ago, Beirut said:

 

I don't agree. With the likes of ORBX getting involved and Heatblur putting out ground breaking modules, things look pretty good.

 

What is missing, I think, is some kind of goal that can be clearly defined. Even as a sandbox flightsim, there should be some kind of goal, some kind of end result that can be both expressed and understood and give the buyer something to kind of lean on. The civvy sim has that. The goal, whether actually attainable or not, is clearly expressed and easy to understand: "We'll give you the whole world and every plane that exists."  Well... okay, good luck with that. But there it is.

 

I really think it's a communication problem. If we're to wait months and years for things we pay for you be delivered in full, it would be good to have something more concrete to lean on as opposed to an ever growing list of "Buy now, wait months, wait years. Wash, rinse, repeat", with no end in sight, so to speak. As stated, it's a bit too much in the wind. Part of the story just seems to be missing.

100% this. Cynicism does not make one profound, it just makes one jaded. We're not watching Rome burn, we're nerds playing video games. With HB and other 3rd parties still openly committed to DCS, it's probably not going anywhere for a time.

ED needs to sit down and take a look at its priorities, this is not the end of DCS. We've heard this from numerous voices within the player base, both reasonable and outrage baiting. Better communication beyond hoping that 9L and BN can get points across is paramount. Some things, like the legal happenings between ED and RB, we need to accept we won't be privy to even when it's all said and done.

So much of this could be ended if ED were to communicate more effectively things like progress with backend developments and engine updates. Something, anything. New content is great, but supporting existing content better would be ideal. After all, the fact it took them 10 years to address the F-86's gun?

Unacceptable. ED can and should do better. But, let's not go dashing for the fainting couch, just yet.

[Weta43]

I don't remember him asking if he could speak for me...

 

Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.

[Xhonas]

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.

Edited October 29, 2024 by Xhonas
typo

[Weta43]

3 hours ago, RaisedByWolves said:

This video game and the company that invented it are basically dying. Its sad. But it’s evolution, and DCS isn’t evolving.  You look at all of the half baked modules that are in “early development” and see how they rarely ever leave that phase and yet they keep putting out more.  I’ve had enjoyable times with this “game” because that is what it is. It is not a simulator.  I wish ED success but at this time I have uninstalled it and maybe someday I’ll revisit again. It’s never ending updates that cause issues, etc. why does it take ED longer to build a video game supercarrier than Newport news can build a real supercarrier?  Nevermind all of the other things they say are in the works, and “it takes time.” Spent a decent portion of one of my paychecks on modules, but it lost that loving feeling, Mav.

 

im sure the moderators will be flustered but I don’t even care. Hats off to you people for carrying the water for DCS. Hope they pay you  well, or whatever. Maybe they only charge you quarter price for these never ending modules in developement.
 

 

Wish you all luck and hopefully your “passion” doesn’t fade!

 

I do enjoy reading the forums. Maybe I’ll read them again next year, I dunno

 

Really?

LOL - If nothing else, it's evolved from being a showcase for Russian aircraft into being one for US aircraft.  

I remember when ED decided to start the flaming cliffs franchise - hordes of users said that it was a betrayal of their investment in the Ubisoft/LO software, that it would never fly (  ) as a franchise, that they would never purchase any of E.D.'s products and that everything E.D. touched would turn to dust (at least a few of those people became very prominent members of the DCS online community).

Same with Black Shark.

Ditto A-10

Ditto combining the existing modules into a single DCS .exe

etc. etc.

There was a special section of a popular forum that was pretty much just dedicated to people venting about E.D.'s relationship with the devil (still running, just the complainers gave up posting)

For 20 years people have been getting the hump about something (pick anything) and saying this sim is about to die.

& yet there's now a thriving community of 3rd party developers & content creators making a living off it where none existed before.

There are some things that have taken a ridiculously long time to address (like the external model clipping into the cockpit in the Su-25 around the canopy frame or the bugged pitot tube info to nav system modelling & incorrect hints on the Mi-24 burst length selector) & some business decisions that seem baffling, but you couldn't have made the campaigns that are available now with the functionality of the sim a few years back.

It's frustrating that things don't get fixed - or evolve - as fast as certainly I'd like to see happen, but to say things are going backwards is to deny reality.

[freehand]

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.

 

[Hog_driver]

5 minutes ago, freehand said:

AAA game player mentality trying to creep into the DCS world with there demands.

 

Yeah, people pay for the modules and expect quality and products that are working and free of bugs, outrageous! With this mentality, we're all doomed!

[BIGNEWY]

Just now, Hog_driver said:

Yeah, people pay for the modules and expect quality and products that are working and free of bugs, outrageous! With this mentality, we're all doomed!

We fix bugs ( see our change logs), the product improves during early access with everyone's feedback and reports, it just takes time, early access is a long process. 
Most people buy into early access knowing it is a development in progress. 

[Hog_driver]

3 minutes ago, BIGNEWY said:

We fix bugs ( see our change logs)

Well, I started playing DCS seven years ago, so you don't have to tell me that, and I read changelogs. And I also don't have to tell you that while some bugs get fixed, new ones are introduced. And sometimes it takes years to fix a bug. And yes, I know "it's a huge task", but we've got what we've got. And I'm not blaming you for this state of affairs, just stating the facts.

[BIGNEWY]

2 minutes ago, Hog_driver said:

Well, I started playing DCS seven years ago, so you don't have to tell me that, and I read changelogs. And I also don't have to tell you that while some bugs get fixed, new ones are introduced. And sometimes it takes years to fix a bug. And yes, I know "it's a huge task", but we've got what we've got. And I'm not blaming you for this state of affairs, just stating the facts.

The complexity of DCS is massive so there will be bugs / issues, we catch many of them internally, and the community reports also help us. We fix issues, but some are more complex than others, or may break something else. It is a constant process and our work can be seen in our change logs. 

[Hog_driver]

5 minutes ago, BIGNEWY said:

The complexity of DCS is massive so there will be bugs / issues, we catch many of them internally, and the community reports also help us. We fix issues, but some are more complex than others, or may break something else. It is a constant process and our work can be seen in our change logs. 

Yes, I am well aware of that but still, unfortunately, I still get frustrated from time to time (too often for my liking). And judging from the title of this thread, many people are frustrated as well.

[BIGNEWY]

5 minutes ago, Hog_driver said:

Yes, I am well aware of that but still, unfortunately, I still get frustrated from time to time (too often for my liking). And judging from the title of this thread, many people are frustrated as well.

No problem, we get frustrated also when things are not going well. 

[MAXsenna]

Yes, I am well aware of that but still, unfortunately, I still get frustrated from time to time (too often for my liking). And judging from the title of this thread, many people are frustrated as well.

Well, he doesn't speak for me. 22K views, pretty good for a couple of days. But only 1.1K likes. Only 570 comments. Makes me think. Are people so frustrated they don't care to cast a like? Or is it just click bait and blown out of proportions? To be honest I watched like a minute of it. I have better things to do than wasting my time watching some dude reading out negative comments. Mind you, I'm also frustrated. But DCS doesn't impact my life negatively in any way. Quite to the contrary, this is some of the best money I have ever spent.
Cheers!

Sent from my SM-A536B using Tapatalk

[Johnny Dioxin]

On 10/27/2024 at 6:09 PM, NineLine said:

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. 

Don't forget that, a few years back when interviewed one of the dev's responsible for the Falcon 4 dynamic campaign said that they would never do it again and if they had known how hard it was going to be, they wouldn't have started doing it in the first place. Think it may have been in PC Pilot magazine.

People like to not recognise that, ignore it or just spew their usual bull. To put it bluntly.

Edited October 29, 2024 by Johnny Dioxin

[Brainspiller]

As a software developer and someone who is following DCS for quite some time now (actually I bought the A10 when DCS wasn't there yet), but just recently started investing the necessary time (kids you know) I would like to chime in a bit.

First some thoughts about software development with regards to some comments in this thread.
Please not that the following observations are merely based on forum discussions and my personal experience in DCS (which is currently only 160 hours)

Rewriting Software (e.g. Mission Editor)

Demanding a rewrite of a complex software system is a very junior approach. I know, because I did the same in my early career.
The problem is, that legacy software (a term for the existing thing) accumulates lots of features over the years and even when you think you know them all...well, you don't. When the new and rewritten software is released, usually it only has a fraction of the original features (I've witnessed it many times).
Fixing Bugs in Legacy Software on the other hand can be extremely slow because not only does software accumulate features, it also accumulates technical debt, which makes future changes harder and harder (because changes introduce new bugs). Here software development is really different from other engineering disciplines: a bad machine/bridge will crash under load, bad software can run for years fine.
Technical debt is usually rapidly increasing when you only focus on new features and neglect maintaining your core.
At some point fixing the old stuff is just not worth it and you have to rewrite.

But if the rewrite is missing features & the legacy software gets unmanageable over time, whats the solution?

One is called the strangler: you take a subcomponent, isolate it in your codebase, rewrite only that, repeat. It looks like ED is doing this here and there.

If you really have to do a complete rewrite the only viable solution is to ship two things at once. Using the ME as an example you could write a new one but in the beginning this one could only be used for simple mission creation (maybe you cannot add voiceovers yet). The users will have to choose which one the have use: if they need all existing features they will have to use the old system. Over time, the new system will get more and more features and at some point the old stuff is gone.
Anyways, I can already hear people screaming "why is the new ME unfinished". You can never please everyone. One could easy the pain, by implementing a transition between new and old, like you start out with the new system and once you need a feature which is not yet supported, a migration is done automatically so you don't have to start from scratch (ME as example, your current setup is copied to the old ME and you can continue there).

How does this relate to this thread

Given that, I do understand to some extend why ED is working as they are and I can relate to some of their decisions.

On the other hand I do see some big clouds ahead. It looks like they are deep in technical dept. Otherwise it wouldn't take so long to fix bugs.
As mentioned before, focusing on features will make this even worse.

So when I assume that a aircraft module is much more complex than a map (ignoring that a good map is still a lot of work), and that the skills necessary are different (a map artist does not code like an aircraft physics/weapon-subsystem developer) I do not see any problem with new maps (I own them all).
Shipping new aircrafts that are not 3rd party on the other hand (like the Chinook), instead of fixing existing problems is.
Adding the new launcher also just added code without real benefits, at least for me (it is just an additional click after I started the game in Steam). I assume that the launcher was pushed by marketing people and it will get a store at some point.
 

Sum up

Hopefully I was able to shed some light on the magic art of software development. ED, you have a lot work to do, but I am optimistic.

I am a single player guy, and having working missions is what gives me joy. So here are my pain points as a freshman.

• broken campaigns
  • Fm radio produces horrendous static noise (Iron Flag A10C)
  • A10 training missions get aborted because I supposedly did something wrong what I didnt
• CCIP bombing is always way to short (it is called "continously computed impact point" for a reason)
• AAA accuracy
• no missions/campaigns for maps (I want to see at least some short campaign for each aircraft on each map

By the way: thanks to MSFL 2020 Flightsims are not as much a niche as they used to be and with the upcoming MSFL 2024 I assume new gamers will hop on. This should be used as an opportunity to attract new players to DCS.

[Hog_driver]

14 minutes ago, Johnny Dioxin said:

Don't forget that, a few years back when interviewed one of the dev's responsible for the Falcon 4 dynamic campaign said that they would never do it again and if they had known how hard it was going to be, they wouldn't have started doing it in the first place.

 

Probably everybody realizes that any dynamic campaign is a complex undertaking and a difficult one to implement, yet it was promised, quite a few years ago. And if we can't get it soon (or at all), let's at least have a believable AI. Campaigns such as Operation Liberation are a bit clumsy to use, but I could live with that, if only AI started behaving sensibly.

[Beirut]

19 minutes ago, Johnny Dioxin said:

Don't forget that, a few years back when interviewed one of the dev's responsible for the Falcon 4 dynamic campaign said that they would never do it again and if they had known how hard it was going to be, they wouldn't have started doing it in the first place. Think it may have been in PC Pilot magazine.

People like to not recognise that, ignore it or just spew their usual bull. To put it bluntly.

 

Keeping in mind that I know absolutely nothing about that which I speak... doesn't AI make this sort of thing easier?

[virgo47]

I watched the video and I mostly agree with the sentiment there. I wish there were more things finished. And I don't mean Afghanistan vs Iraq teams. A map delayed a month or two, whatever. I mean the modules that are in limbo for a long time that calling them abandonware is closer to reality than not, e.g. Yak-52. Just because it still works it is technically probably not an abandonware. In every other aspect, it is. NS430 propagating "radio" on its shop page. And most annoying are all those bugs that slowly accumulate in older modules, reported - and that's it. Minimal priority. I'd rather have ATC working a bit better, but because there is some new ATC on the horizon (I don't believe it will land in two years anyway), ATC is totally ignored in the Caucasus. This also breaks older missions for older modules.

I believe older modules do deserve more than just being kept "bootable". They should work. I don't ask for improvements. Just for bug fixes. Instead, we get that Voice chat where SRS worked fine. Sure, great idea, hopefully will be feature complete and bug-free eventually. Starting new projects have ever more priority than fixing bugs. That can only end with way too many bugs in way too many modules.

Edited October 29, 2024 by virgo47