DCS Players Have Had Enough - A youtubers opinion

[NineLine]

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we are left with the product you present to us and given some of it's core and module features have remained broken, outdated or unfinished/missing for years while you manage to release new EA modules back to back, well, excuse us for not being very satisfied or having doubts about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

I don't think we have ever said there aren't issues.

But I also do not think its fair to paint is that we are only 'pumping out' Early Access and not finishing them. The changelogs show plenty of work on EA modules as well as the core game. 

I also do not think its fair to say that the AH-64, F-16 and F/A-18 updates are slow, again they see updates all the time, and some take more time than others. The A-10C II was waiting on a free dev who is well versed in the A-10C, and it hardly hurt the module at all, I would argue that most people have gotten their moneys worth out of the A-10C over and over by now. 

The Supercarrier has been painfully slow, but its also adding things to the game that we have never had or seen. The directors alone have been going over major MP testing and tweaking, its moving crew on a moving ship guiding moving players, some who ignore or do not follow instructions. It's not a simple task. So I can concede these things take a long time, you also have to concede that some of these things require a lot of time. And the Supercarrier still works during that time, although I know bugs pop up here and there with something that has its guts being worked on in the background. 

The core gets work all the time, again you see it on changelogs. Ground AI has already improved in regards to non-AI vs air targets. AI still requires lots of work as well, but it is in progress, and results pop up all the time, including this upcoming patch. The AI is very intertwined (spaghetti code I think Nick said). So it needs to be pulled apart and tuned. We have seen where one thing can impact another and hurt gameplay. 

The Dynamic Campaign is a no win situation right now, I explained earlier in this very thread, I think even to you about the work going into it. Should we have not said anything until we were closer? Then it would have been we are not willing to make one. Instead, we are making one and its taking too long. If we release it too soon, then we are incompetent... 

Quote

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

This is simply disingenuous, no one is getting banned for saying RAZBAM (or anything else negative as proved by this thread), we have a whole thread on it. We are not happy about it, nobody is. While I understand the frustrations, let's at least discuss this fairly and not make things up. I think I have tried to be very fair in this thread. Let me know if I have not. 

1 hour 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.

We have talked about this before, Caucasus is the oldest map and the only one using a hybrid mix of old tech and new. Nevada was the first new map on new tech. To redo the Caucasus would require a complete rebuild. Now that isn't probably the biggest issue, the biggest would be the years and years of content built on that map and making sure it all works. Add to this that many people want actual warzones for the aircraft they have. I would prefer Vietnam or Korea before and updated Caucasus, but that's just my personal opinion. 

[Beirut]

58 minutes ago, Harlikwin said:

Well, the MP guys care as much for your opinion as you do theirs.

 

Perfect! 

 

 

58 minutes ago, Harlikwin said:

And the splitting the community thing is a real issue in MP. 

 

Going OT I suppose, but I've heard so much of this "OMG!!! It will banana split the community!!!" thing, it just sounds like whining to me. 

 

But again, I admit my bias, guilty as charged, and all of this is neither here nor there. 

 

(That was my "like" on your post.)

Edited October 29, 2024 by Beirut

[NineLine]

Just know all, I will shamelessly lock this thread if it goes off the rails. I have made sure that management is aware of the video, and both me and BN have raised our concerns which are much of your concerns. So please do not turn on each other or go off the deep end if you feel this thread is still helpful. Thanks. 

 

[Johnny Dioxin]

3 hours ago, Harlikwin said:

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. 

Aaah, my dream...

[MiG21bisFishbedL]

1 hour ago, NineLine said:

Just know all, I will shamelessly lock this thread if it goes off the rails. I have made sure that management is aware of the video, and both me and BN have raised our concerns which are much of your concerns. So please do not turn on each other or go off the deep end if you feel this thread is still helpful. Thanks. 

 

But I want Dairy Queen

11 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.

 

Hold up a moment, a AAA game player mentality? What do you exactly mean?

We're all entitled to a functioning product, legally, but we also need to accept that the amount of work that goes into the detailed simulation we see also requires a premium, but I'm not sure what you mean by AAA game player mentality. Care to elaborate?

1 hour ago, Beirut said:

 

Perfect! 

 

 

 

Going OT I suppose, but I've heard so much of this "OMG!!! It will banana split the community!!!" thing, it just sounds like whining to me. 

 

But again, I admit my bias, guilty as charged, and all of this is neither here nor there. 

 

(That was my "like" on your post.)

 

So, it isn't the doom and gloom that so many gamers love to dramatize at as, but it is there. It's an annoyance in two ways:

1. Everyone gets hyped up for Syria, for example, and gets it. You didn't because, hey, responsibilities. However, if your group is all dead set on playing on Syria, you have to ask if they'll make an exception for you or you just have to sit on the sidelines. For a map.

2. You get super hyped for Sinai, for example, and get it. No one else does. So, you now have to try and convince friends it's worth it, etc.

So, it can be VERY annoying and a less exacting divide or restriction would be preferable.

[freehand]

6 minutes ago, MiG21bisFishbedL said:

But I want Dairy Queen

Hold up a moment, a AAA game player mentality? What do you exactly mean?

We're all entitled to a functioning product, legally, but we also need to accept that the amount of work that goes into the detailed simulation we see also requires a premium, but I'm not sure what you mean by AAA game player mentality. Care to elaborate?

I am sure you can work it out on your own.

[Beirut]

7 minutes ago, MiG21bisFishbedL said:

So, it isn't the doom and gloom that so many gamers love to dramatize at as, but it is there. It's an annoyance in two ways:

 

I'll have to take your word for it. 

 

Haven't done the MP thing in many a moon. 

[MiG21bisFishbedL]

3 minutes ago, freehand said:

I am sure you can work it out on your own.

I'm legitimately curious as to what you're meaning, I'm sorry if I came off snarky. I am genuinely interested as to what you mean, exactly.

[Why485]

6 hours ago, Harlikwin said:

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... 

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.  

Excellent post. I agree on all points. The inconsistent level of fidelity as to how aircraft are modeled (since every plane must reinvent every wheel), as well as the lack of any coherency in the planeset since the "departure" of Belsimtek, has had far reaching consequences on what missions can be created and designed, particularly in a MP context. E.g. it's really incredible that DCS is the first flight sim (AFAIK) to be able to create missions set during the Falklands War, but totally lacks the assets or flyable aircraft necessary to make it even remotely accurate.

The only thing I have to add is that I do think for a majority of DCS players, dropping guided bombs on Toyotas from 20k feet is peak gameplay, and that's who I think ED is appealing to with recent map releases, especially the Iraq one. Unfortunately, the players who are about a wider variety of older aircraft with peer opponents seem to be a vocal minority.

Edited October 29, 2024 by Why485

[TheFreshPrince]

vor 1 Stunde schrieb NineLine:

We have talked about this before, Caucasus is the oldest map and the only one using a hybrid mix of old tech and new. Nevada was the first new map on new tech. To redo the Caucasus would require a complete rebuild. Now that isn't probably the biggest issue, the biggest would be the years and years of content built on that map and making sure it all works. Add to this that many people want actual warzones for the aircraft they have. I would prefer Vietnam or Korea before and updated Caucasus, but that's just my personal opinion. 

Easy, just expand the map towards Ukraine and there's your warzone.  Caucasus has earned an upgrade, it's still THE map. New maps are also welcome of course. But I wonder if you still want to have it as the standard map in several years with things changing around it. Old missions and campaigns get (or are already) broken anyway. 

Also, I'm gonna be honest here. Very often someone suggests something, the answer is "doing this would mean this and that and it's not possible because of...". It's really frustrating. It's EDs job to find ways to make things happen and certainly it's never impossible, just lots of work as always.

[Lau]

Below quotes also apply to this topic

Thanks,

On 11/1/2024 at 2:26 PM, Slippa said:

A while back someone called Fred I think started posting loads of pictures and info in the Ugra section.

There were shots of airfields, aerial shots and pretty detailed plans of buildings or structures on the airfields. There are thousands and thousands of aerial shots around mapping most of what was occupied Europe so if one wanted to, accurate maps could be made of the period. Unfortunately, for whatever reason Ugra didn’t even reply to these threads that Fred was posting in. Not even a thanks but no thanks.

It seemed a bit odd to me, personally I’d love everything to be as accurate as possible. Roads, landmarks, railway lines (with trains that work properly, Canterbury Cathederal , Rochester Castle etc etc. We can’t have everything I know and map makers can’t please everyone. I’m sure they’re having a good go.

 

 

2 hours ago, Lau said:

There are sims where this passion is not gone to waste for the simple reason that developers have drawn a limit to how far they are prepared to push their work. Once that limit is established they have opened to the community the possibility to develop maps, 3D objects with damage model and in no time, all this free work became available to the community.

When I came across the research work of the person you mentioned, I could also not help but to reflect about that, where is this zone limit? Is it too early to offer Ugra all this passion and potential free work? Will that come later down the road? By the look of things, not even ED has the answer to these simple questions. Also and from a business perspective; is Ugra selling enough maps to justify the time investment to handcraft all these historical details? Again we need the big picture to understand but, the lest “no thank you” cannot be excused since a minimum of customer service should be maintained at all times and for every product sold on the ED front store.

I have only reported one bug on the Normandy 2.0 related to the magnetic variation being wrong compared to the real WW2 overlay map of 1944. The bug was fixed internally without anyone acknowledging my message, moved to “fixed” by BN after I reported it to be fixed. There is hardly any soul down there working on the WW2 front apart from the occasional 9L message after several months of a bug report, acknowledging and moving the status to “reported” or “investigating” and then, well hardly any return on our investment and a road map that is certainly out of track. I have never seen any reply from Ugra other than a couple of lines on the change log updates incredibly spaced into time. The Normandy 2.0 map is in early access, I do not know for you but, to me there is not enough development activity, perhaps justified by low sales since the WW2 warbirds and asset pack has also been in an abandoned state for a long time.

Referring back to customers support: To me the only reason BN was around that they to move my bug report to “fixed” is because he was just monitoring all my messages to see if he could squeeze another warning. 60 points for fighting my way to get a refund on the F15E and 10 points for writing another sims name, yet, I see 9L freely writing them in he’s messages. The last time 9L could not help it but to delete a couple of our messages before moving the bug report related to the warbirds artificial horizon problem to “reported”, they call this “cleaning”. What I am saying is not black and white, we need moderation and can see how passionate we all are, starting by the fact that we do not all have the same age, but moderation on the ED forum has been so heavy handed that it became obvious that it was more intended at protecting EDs failures in order to protect its current business, a business model based on promises and trust from its customers base. It is sad to see that many of us are currently disappointed, yet we are prepared to be patient and see things move in the right direction with important and timely changelog updates. It is scary to me that after almost 1000€ of investments from one customer, they show us that they are short on cash to deliver. More products come out and we are stock with BN and 9L for the customer support side  (ED products and Ugra). Why is the company not hiring more staff at all levels to back up the company expansion? No wonder we are told BN and 9L are super busy, but that is not what I would have expected from a company with the level of ambitions promoted through EDs marketing campaigns.

I have an unlimited passion for airplanes but, I must say that I feel reassured to see videos on you tube pointing the problems we are facing as customers with ED, this with the only hope that a positive outcome will come out of them; courtesy is a matter concerning all parties and it can be of no surprise to ED that in the current state of things matters escalate within the community.

Thanks,

 

 

 

Edited November 3, 2024 by Lau

[nessuno0505]

Il 29/10/2024 at 19:57, NineLine ha scritto:

I don't think we have ever said there aren't issues.

But I also do not think its fair to paint is that we are only 'pumping out' Early Access and not finishing them. The changelogs show plenty of work on EA modules as well as the core game. 

I also do not think its fair to say that the AH-64, F-16 and F/A-18 updates are slow, again they see updates all the time, and some take more time than others. The A-10C II was waiting on a free dev who is well versed in the A-10C, and it hardly hurt the module at all, I would argue that most people have gotten their moneys worth out of the A-10C over and over by now. 

The Supercarrier has been painfully slow, but its also adding things to the game that we have never had or seen. The directors alone have been going over major MP testing and tweaking, its moving crew on a moving ship guiding moving players, some who ignore or do not follow instructions. It's not a simple task. So I can concede these things take a long time, you also have to concede that some of these things require a lot of time. And the Supercarrier still works during that time, although I know bugs pop up here and there with something that has its guts being worked on in the background. 

The core gets work all the time, again you see it on changelogs. Ground AI has already improved in regards to non-AI vs air targets. AI still requires lots of work as well, but it is in progress, and results pop up all the time, including this upcoming patch. The AI is very intertwined (spaghetti code I think Nick said). So it needs to be pulled apart and tuned. We have seen where one thing can impact another and hurt gameplay. 

The Dynamic Campaign is a no win situation right now, I explained earlier in this very thread, I think even to you about the work going into it. Should we have not said anything until we were closer? Then it would have been we are not willing to make one. Instead, we are making one and its taking too long. If we release it too soon, then we are incompetent... 

This is simply disingenuous, no one is getting banned for saying RAZBAM (or anything else negative as proved by this thread), we have a whole thread on it. We are not happy about it, nobody is. While I understand the frustrations, let's at least discuss this fairly and not make things up. I think I have tried to be very fair in this thread. Let me know if I have not. 

We have talked about this before, Caucasus is the oldest map and the only one using a hybrid mix of old tech and new. Nevada was the first new map on new tech. To redo the Caucasus would require a complete rebuild. Now that isn't probably the biggest issue, the biggest would be the years and years of content built on that map and making sure it all works. Add to this that many people want actual warzones for the aircraft they have. I would prefer Vietnam or Korea before and updated Caucasus, but that's just my personal opinion. 

You must admit some of the criticism have their own reason: now you have a lot of 3rd parties and a lot of new airplanes are made by them. Nevertheless your own modules list seems a bit too ambitious: a-10c, f/a-18, f-16, (very complex airframes); f-5, l-39, mig-15, f-86, (they all would need an overhaul); yak-52 (an easy prop plane almost abandoned for years); and now the mig-29 (I'm really glad to see at last a 4th gen redfor, but it's yet another module!). Then the helicopters: ah-64 (very complex), ka-50 and mi-24 (quite complex too), uh-1 and mi-8 (they also need an overhaul), and now the ch-47 (interesting machine, but again another new one!). Then all the ww2 and all the maps (always new ones); plus all the work on the main game (as far as I know the hardest, most time consuming and in need of human resources of all your works). Doesn't that sound a bit too much? If we criticized Razbam's list because it seemed a bit too ambitious for them, what is this in comparison? It is almost natural to think that you could leave the new projects to third parties and focus for a while on finishing or updating the existing ones (even for a fee, as with the a-10c II), in order to bring them all to the same level, fix the many bugs, put a point and only then, if anything, start from there with new modules. It does not seem so absurd to me such a thought, because the impression is that you cannot keep up with it as it is now, despite all the undoubted, tireless, undeniable efforts.

Edited November 5, 2024 by nessuno0505

[wilbur81]

I'd say, per Nessuno's post above, that ED's only real 'problem' is that they're too ambitious. They get criticized with comparisons to FBMS, 3rd Party Module aircraft, etc... when they are taking on 25 times more work and complexity with full-fidelity, advanced (and immensely popular) airframes, maps, campaigns...etc. And then they have the core game itself. They will never win. I just hope they don't get discouraged. I for one just loaded up a rainy day mission on the Supercarrier in the Hornet, with Tomcats and other jets crowding the deck... and I had absolutely no frame drops or hiccups in 2D. A year ago, with the same mission and setup, my FPS would've dropped into the teens when looking at the deck Island, and that with even lower settings than I'm currently running. They just slowly get this sim better and better. But, yes...they are WAY too ambitious. And they are still the best overall air combat sim in town...bar none.

Edited November 6, 2024 by wilbur81

[Glide]

I love this sim.  Let's take a page out of the civilian sim's deck, and remember there are 15M flight simmers, of which 3M are hard core, and 6M are "digital tourists".  We are a small market, and it is in all our best interests to see this industry grow.  ED has given me great times and great memories.  Here's to wind in your sails.

[sirrah]

2 hours ago, wilbur81 said:

I'd say, per Nessuno's post above, that ED's only real 'problem' is that they're too ambitious. They get criticized with comparisons to FBMS, 3rd Party Module aircraft, etc... when they are taking on 25 times more work and complexity with full-fidelity, advanced (and immensely popular) airframes, maps, campaigns...etc. And then they have the core game itself. They will never win. I just hope they don't get discouraged. I for one just loaded up a rainy day mission on the Supercarrier in the Hornet, with Tomcats and other jets crowding the deck... and I had absolutely no frame drops or hiccups in 2D. A year ago, with the same mission and settings, my FPS would've dropped into the teens when looking at the deck Island, and that with even lower settings than I'm currently running. They just slowly get this sim better and better. But, yes...they are WAY too ambitious. And they are still the best overall air combat sim in town...bar none.

 

I strongly agree with this (although I'd add that imo ED is "ambitious" in a positive sense of that word)

DCS (and its predecesser versions) has evolved to something extraordinary/unique and I feel kinda sorry for the devs that lately there seems to be this strong, very vocal, movement of (what appears to be mainly new) unsatisfied DCS players. I'm not judging anyone here and all should of course feel free to express their concerns, but what I don't like, is all these posts saying stuff like "we want change". Not sure why anyone would feel entitled to speak for everyone.

I'm very happy that we have DCS and I have all the trust in ED knowing what's best for DCS.

Do I like to see improvements to specific DCS features? Of course I do. But I'm also very aware, that what I want, may not be what is best for DCS to evolve further. I (or in this case I dare to say "we" ) jsut don't know the bigger picture.

 

I hope all this spreading negative flow (it's even worse on YouTube I noticed), will soon make place for positivity (Kumbaya, my lord Kumbaya )

[SharpeXB]

DCS is always getting these unfair comparisons to old games which were probably 40x easier to make decades ago. I’m pretty sure a single module today is more work than an entire game was back then. 

[Harlikwin]

16 minutes ago, sirrah said:

I strongly agree with this (although I'd add that imo ED is "ambitious" in a positive sense of that word)

DCS (and its predecesser versions) has evolved to something extraordinary/unique and I feel kinda sorry for the devs that lately there seems to be this strong, very vocal, movement of (what appears to be mainly new) unsatisfied DCS players. I'm not judging anyone here and all should of course feel free to express their concerns, but what I don't like, is all these posts saying stuff like "we want change". Not sure why anyone would feel entitled to speak for everyone.

I'm very happy that we have DCS and I have all the trust in ED knowing what's best for DCS.

Do I like to see improvements to specific DCS features? Of course I do. But I'm also very aware, that what I want, may not be what is best for DCS to evolve further. I (or in this case I dare to say "we" ) jsut don't know the bigger picture.

 

I hope all this spreading negative flow (it's even worse on YouTube I noticed), will soon make place for positivity (Kumbaya, my lord Kumbaya )

I think the  sentiment has been there for a very long time, and people have given ED a chance... But the game is big on promises and potential, but falls pretty hard in terms of practical execution of many things that "other sims" got right on day 1. The complaints about the core game have gone back years and its still  nowhere near what it should be and the standard "its complicated" excuses have worn thin. I'll  give credit to ED for improving performance, that  was a big task and they did manage to do it. But it was an existential task, if they didn't do it, DCS would be dead. Similarly improving the core game stuff is the next existential task, and the list of what needs to change is pretty large, and everyone has different priorities. I listed some of what I thought was important earlier, but frankly I have little hope for improvements on most of it because its clear to me that what I consider important isn't important to ED. But I'm far from alone in that crowd. I mean you can go back every few years and find similar videos to this, the "beautiful mess" one from a few years back has exactly the same message, fix the core game, and then there are famous former DCS celebs that have said the same thing. And yet over the years basically nothing has changed in that regard. So ¯\_(ツ)_/¯, for the time being I'm out of passion and support. 

 

[Vakarian]

Yes, this exactly. It's perfectly fine to express your own opinion, good or bad. The moment someone starts a post with "we" or "it's a consensus", I immediately discard that person's opinion.

Ofc it's a lot easier to moan about the bad sides, they are easier to spot as they do have a direct negative impact on your gameplay, but very rarely you see people praising the good sides. I see a lot of people here just listing all the bad things with DCS, everything that bugs them, but very few make contrasting notes of how much time they have spent playing and how much enjoyment DCS have brought to them. After all, you wouldn't notice all of the bad stuff if you haven't spent enough time.

Personally, I do think ED might have stretched themselves a bit thin with just how many modules they do have in active development as after all they do have a finite amount of developers. They don't grow on trees, they can't work 24/7 and with ever increasing amount of scrutiny and I would say overly pedantic reviews from players, they sure as hell do need to spend awful lot of time just learning the matter and then they have to teach computers to do that stuff. It seems a lot of people are forgetting that when coding things, unless you program something, that doesn't happen. IRL dependencies do not automagically translate into the computer world, someone has to code it.

On the other hand, I know that ED doesn't particularly care what I think and they are correct to think that way. They have a vision for DCS (rather, I really hope they do) and they should stick to it. Sure, every now and then put out a feelers with the community, see what they are most excited for, but they should never budge from their plans just because the community thinks otherwise. The community doesn't know all that's going on behind the scenes (nor should they), but they want everything and want it now. You obviously can't please that, so stick to your plans and ensure you do them. 

To wrap it up, DCS has brought me far more enjoyable hours of my life than the miserable ones due to bugs or whatnot, so hats off to that and I hope for many more to come. 

[nessuno0505]

4 ore fa, wilbur81 ha scritto:

ED's only real 'problem' is that they're too ambitious.

Being too ambitious ends up like Star Citizen.

But to be honest I do not really think you can compare DCS with SC, at least here there's a game to play, and what a game!

I've spent countless hours myself enjoying DCS and I still continue to use it, I can't deny the truth nor it's my intention.

Nevertheless, the more you go deep in the sim and the more you see the huge amount of bigger and smaller bugs affecting ANY module, being it in EA or already released since years. And I'm not talking of the countless features we are waiting for in the core game. As it is now DCS, with reference to single player experience, is a cockpit simulator, and I'm fine with it. But I would demand at least a full working one, not something that as soon as you go a little deeper into the procedures, the bugs come out left and right, and when you report them you find that they have "already reported"... since decades! I do not know if this behaviour is due to the growing list of active modules, but this is undeniable and often very frustrating. Just an example: the a-10c airport divert page. It shoud give you the ATC frequency of the selected airport, but there's a bug for which you have **** instead of the frequency. This is a bug reported since DCS 2.0 came out, they have reviewed the a-10c with the version II, adding a lot of new stuff, but those bug is still there, and has been reported dozens of times, since years ago. It may seem a minor annoyance (and really it is), but ALL modules none excluded are full of stuff like this. What do I do with the mig-29 if all this stuff instead of being fixed continue to increase from update to update?

I may have written "we" in some of my previous posts: I apologize. I'm no one to speak for the community and I don't even intend to: this is just how I see it. But tell me it's not true...

Edited November 6, 2024 by nessuno0505

[Xhonas]

7 hours ago, nessuno0505 said:

Being too ambitious ends up like Star Citizen.

But to be honest I do not really think you can compare DCS with SC, at least here there's a game to play, and what a game!

I've spent countless hours myself enjoying DCS and I still continue to use it, I can't deny the truth nor it's my intention.

Nevertheless, the more you go deep in the sim and the more you see the huge amount of bigger and smaller bugs affecting ANY module, being it in EA or already released since years. And I'm not talking of the countless features we are waiting for in the core game. As it is now DCS, with reference to single player experience, is a cockpit simulator, and I'm fine with it. But I would demand at least a full working one, not something that as soon as you go a little deeper into the procedures, the bugs come out left and right, and when you report them you find that they have "already reported"... since decades! I do not know if this behaviour is due to the growing list of active modules, but this is undeniable and often very frustrating. Just an example: the a-10c airport divert page. It shoud give you the ATC frequency of the selected airport, but there's a bug for which you have **** instead of the frequency. This is a bug reported since DCS 2.0 came out, they have reviewed the a-10c with the version II, adding a lot of new stuff, but those bug is still there, and has been reported dozens of times, since years ago. It may seem a minor annoyance (and really it is), but ALL modules none excluded are full of stuff like this. What do I do with the mig-29 if all this stuff instead of being fixed continue to increase from update to update?

I may have written "we" in some of my previous posts: I apologize. I'm no one to speak for the community and I don't even intend to: this is just how I see it. But tell me it's not true...

 

If ED managed to keep the modules bug free it would be a huge win to them. To me they could take their time to release new features, but once released, keep them bug free. From this pov, i can't see why ED isn't developing more variants of the same aircraft. Like, why they didn't start with an earlier version of the F-16C and later offered a paid upgrade to the block 50 variant with all the cool features like DL, Sniper pod, HTS. An earlier version would be less complex to develop due to having less features.. then you could jutisfy selling a "naked" jet, and the paid upgrade to the more advanced variant could would serve as an incentive to keep working on the module, since they stated many times that they need a constant cashflow to develop something so complex. 

Sometimes it feels pointless to express what we feel here. This discussion exists for a very long time, "the players discontent with dcs". Feels pointless because either ED doesn't listen to the community or they simply can't do anything about it. "Because dcs is super complex" Sometimes i wish they would reduce the complexity. Like if the product is too complex that you can't deliver it without bugs, then reduce the complexity. But at the same time, you see third parties delivering maps like the Syria map, very complex and realistic radar simulations like the one in the F-15E Strike Eagle, Mirage 2000 -- both of those jets aren't being supported by the original developers right now and the radars are free of bugs --, study level simulation of FLIR and IR mechanics in other games of the genre... So the standard is there and it is impossible to not expect ED to meet them. Perhaps that is impossible to achieve? i hope not. But right now i would be less discontent if they just fixed what they currently have. 

Edited November 7, 2024 by Xhonas

[Dangerzone]

3 hours ago, Xhonas said:

If ED managed to keep the modules bug free it would be a huge win to them. To me they could take their time to release new features, but once released, keep them bug free.

This. What I'm seeing now is that the world (generally speaking) is shifting direction. In many places, it's the first time in over 100 years where the latest generation has it harder than previous generations with income and living expenses, and the next generation after will probably have it harder again due to incredible debt many nations are in. 

This doesn't just traverse to sales - this also traverses to enthusiasm. Less disposable income also normally equates to having to work harder, and having less disposable time. Where people in the past have had ample of both, 'putting up' with bugs, and  extra time to work around them, I think that the walls are going to slowly, but surely close in on this. People are going to just want to sit down and relax with something that distracts them from their problems and hard times, to something that 'just works'. To escape from the grind, problems that life brings. As such, I suspect people will start avoiding more things that introduce new problems and hurdles to overcome. This won't be everyone, but I do believe there is going to be a trend in this direction. 

I know even in my own life, even though I'm fortunate enough to maintain a comfortable amount of disposable income at the moment compared to many around me - I'm working harder, are more tired than normal, and have less patience to put up with bugs. I'm seeing many friends drop off from DCS completely due to lack of enthusiasm (largely caused by bugs), plus dealing with many bugs myself - has found myself playing DCS maybe a quarter (if lucky) compared to what I used to. 

With stable release now gone (let's face it... what we have even though it was supposed to be the destruction of Open Beta leaving Stable behind), is really Open Beta, with Stable release gone - so gone with it seems any chance of having something more stable. 

But we also need to be realistic. Bugs will come. This needs to be accepted. However - I perceive ED's attitudes to the bugs it's introduce is going to get DCS into far more trouble than they expect. What we're seeing with video's and youtube comments at the moment is a significant warning. I'm already at a stage where I have no desire for ED's maps anymore - focusing only on 3rd party - because I feel as though if 3rd party introduce bugs, they will attend to it much faster than what ED does, and as much as I love DCS and want it to thrive, rumors that I dismissed earlier I'm beginning to question if there's substance. 

I've been told that with marriage, often the problem isn't when a couple fight - it's when they stop fighting. Councellors tell me that there's a good chance to save a marriage with fighting couples. But once couples get to a stage where they've stopped fighting and no longer have the effort/energy/care - it can be near impossible to save the marriage. 

If so, the good news (at present) - is it seems even though many people are very upset - they are still passionate - passionate enough about DCS to care enough to make video's, write blasting comments on trailer video's, or writing stuff here. However - I do fear that the next step (if unresolved) will be people not caring anymore... and that's when the comments, video's, etc will just stop. It's then that this issue will become irreversible, and I don't know how close that is, but feel it's close.

So while bug free expectations isn't realistic, stamping on those bugs as soon as they've been made is critical.

This whole waiting 2+ years for bugs to be fixed needs to stop. Failure to address this I think will have significant and irreversible effects on the long term success of DCS. It really feels like now is a pivotal 'making or breaking' of DCS's future.

I'm hoping with all the enthusiasm I can muster that the last 2 major updates (that were filled with 'fixed' is a sign that ED is changing direction, and not just a momentary gesture to try and appease customers. 

[Rene Coulon]

On 10/28/2024 at 8:32 AM, 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...

We still cannot do something as basic as Sporn a Static object !

[jackd]

Generally i like DCS. Bought it not as much for the current jets, but for WW2 and helicopters.

So far IMO WW2 seems quite unfinished, that's for planes and vehicles.

Helicopters like the Huey is for me still a battle to get the controllers working under my control. Every time i start DCS i end it far too soon being frustrated about something.

I usually then start IL2 Great Battles (expensive too) or Rise of Flight, and get more fun out of it, either with skinning, mission editor or game play.

I can understand why it's tough to get this seemingly quite complicated game 'right'. But for now i feel that in regards of rewarding play time i did not get that much pleasure out of it money wise. Especially when you buy an expensive module that seemingly never gets finished for renown bugs.

-------------------------------------------

Last summer i tried the last 2 tombraider games, and got far more gaming time pleasure out in regards of spent money ....  each cost about 15 bucks on Steam, and you will need a general game controller.

 

[Aapje]

Another video on the subject.

[MAXsenna]

Another video on the subject.

Yeah, I saw. Iain, didn't see that one coming. Might watch this one though.

Sent from my SM-A536B using Tapatalk