Request Q&A with Nick Grey (ED cofounder/owner). Ask hard questions.

[AndrewDCS2005]

Imho, for reasons below, it is time for Q&A with Nick Grey and time to hear from him about ED priorities, product quality, future vision, 3rd party projects, etc.

ED is privately owned, and there's no reason whatsoever for Mr. Grey to do this, but I'm curious what the community thinks. In either case, results of the poll might provide good feedback for ED. Thank you!

 

EDIT Nov.3 - reasons for this ask are the following.

The problem is DCS significantly overgrew ED. The magnificent, amazing, wonderful, superb DCS (and its modules, terrains, tech, etc) can no longer be efficiently managed by ED due to mismatch in grand scale of DCS vs very limited ED capacity and capabilities. The sheer number of air, ground and naval assets including player-drivable, ground and atmosphere simulation, weapons and sensors, multiplied by their depth and nuances from WWII era piston engines small caliber ammo and control surfaces moved by rods and cables, to modern precision strike weapons and flight management computers, intermixed with bots/AI flying these in various types of missions, all on the shoulders of very small team (say 100+ people?) with highly fragmented and specialized skills (few modern era radar devs, few modelers, few weapon devs, few weather devs if any, etc etc) with each engineer/artist/tester/etc needing to handle a lot of "features" or "projects" or modules or whatever we want to call them.

There are multiple direct indications supporting this and very few indications to contrary. Textbook examples are mission-critical bugs routinely breaking already released modules and systems, which ED itself declares most important (see subforums on F-16 bugs and F-18 bugs on very basic radar and weapon issues); 5+ years with no demonstrable progress on ED declared upcoming features such as Dynamic Campaign; prime products such as F-16 labeled as "Early Access" and unfinished for many years. These are just few examples, not my wishlist, and examples are many more.

 

At this point the question is not when proper ATC or AI will be done (most probably never), but if ED can continue to carry the increasing weight of DCS world on its shoulders and remain viable business delivering quality product.

And this would be great to hear from ED business owners, to understand what future is there for us - paying customers and highly devoted DCS community.

Edited November 3, 2024 by AndrewDCS2005

[Furiz]

Like call the prime minister of some country and ask him the right questions on the interview, not gonna happen

[SharpeXB]

Have you seen these?

 

[AndrewDCS2005]

@SharpeXB thanks, that was 4 years ago.

[SharpeXB]

2 hours ago, AndrewDCS2005 said:

@SharpeXB thanks, that was 4 years ago.

Well in DCS years that’s like yesterday

[Mike Force Team]

At least somebody asked and has the satisfaction of having asked. 

Hearing what ED is doing gives the DCS community reassurance as well as what is as what is not being done. 

Mike Force Team 

[Dangerzone]

A Q&A might be interesting, but in the end I think it would achieve very little than a PR stunt. 

Instead, I’d prefer to see more ongoing community connection that would bear good fruit. Especially with significant community contributors. After what happened with RJ (OverlordBot creator) I’d love to see a shift in direction when it came to connecting with the community better, and providing support and direction for the community needs. 

ED have had an incredible free resource with a number of contributors in the community (and still have some). I don’t think that was/is fully realised or appreciated by ED. I’d love to see some real changes in that area and better support and connection for API, and community module developers. 

[NineLine]

5 hours ago, Dangerzone said:

A Q&A might be interesting, but in the end I think it would achieve very little than a PR stunt. 

Sadly this is most likely what would happen (or how it would end up being seen). I understand everyone's frustration and wanting things to be better. I can assure you the team is working hard on everything. I am sure Nick or anyone on the team can try and answer all the questions everyone has, but at the end of the day nothing but results matters and we are all working hard for those. 

The F/A-18C and, more specifically, the F-16 have been a little unstable as we do more deep work on the radar and other such systems. This can impact the stability of the module in release. We need to do a better job of catching these things, for sure. But again, I can say and give all the reasons why for everything listed here, and again it doesn't matter until everyone sees results. 

I will run this by Nick, maybe even a text-based Q&A, but not sure there are any answers beyond what we have and continue to share already. 

Thanks all. 

 

[Silver_Dragon]

20 hours ago, AndrewDCS2005 said:

@SharpeXB thanks, that was 4 years ago.

Some missing them, on december 2023 Nick get some Q&A on the last VIAF

And Wags was maked other Q&A.

[Silver_Dragon]

On 11/2/2024 at 8:52 PM, AndrewDCS2005 said:

Imho, for reasons below, it is time for Q&A with Nick Grey and time to hear from him about ED priorities, product quality, future vision, 3rd party projects, etc.

ED is privately owned, and there's no reason whatsoever for Mr. Grey to do this, but I'm curious what the community thinks. In either case, results of the poll might provide good feedback for ED. Thank you!

All previous years, on january, we have a roadmap about the actual develop plans on DCS World for 2024 and beyond.

On modules (only missing WW2, and the future Mig-29 module, that last, never planned to 2024).

And the core:

And we have to only two mounts to first, the dinamic campaign december report, and the new 2025 "roadmap". About 3rd partie "priorities", that is not a Nick or ED issue, has a 3rd party issue about that companies develop plans and releases.

Edited November 4, 2024 by Silver_Dragon

[Mike_Romeo]

23 hours ago, SharpeXB said:

Have you seen these?

 

You forgot this one:
 

 

[Supernova-III]

On 11/2/2024 at 9:52 PM, AndrewDCS2005 said:

but I'm curious what the community thinks

Thank you! Meanwhile, I'd like to mention how ED starts their weekly newsletter, announce, whatever:

Quote

Dear Fighter Pilots, Partners and Friends,

The question is simple: do you see the word "community" here? I think, this should answer all our questions to ED, to DCS, and everything related.

 

On 11/2/2024 at 9:52 PM, AndrewDCS2005 said:

Textbook examples are mission-critical bugs routinely breaking already released modules and systems, which ED itself declares most important (see subforums on F-16 bugs and F-18 bugs on very basic radar and weapon issues); 5+ years with no demonstrable progress on ED declared upcoming features such as Dynamic Campaign; prime products such as F-16 labeled as "Early Access" and unfinished for many years. These are just few examples, not my wishlist, and examples are many more.

And I'm still suffering from ED ignoring Su-25 (my fav aircraft) I always thought you guys (who loves F-16/18) get the best of DCS, but it's not that simple even here.

[Gary]

Didn't see this through before so doubt very much your request will happen.

I'm sure the original intention was good but for whatever reason it got abandoned.

 

[AndrewDCS2005]

Nick Grey's interview for VIAF 2023 (from mid-Dec 2023) was good. However, it was mostly tactical (upcoming modules and maps, current state of the world) and only briefly touched on three business-impacting topics:

- ED will continue to charge fixed price per module, since it doesnt see DCS as "content" platform (which can be debated but this is beyond the point)

- DCS feels empty and there is no story - this is mostly intentional, and users need to come up with "their own fun"

- hiring professionals for flight simulators is really hard, and requires rare combo of very specific skills

The question is whether current approach of pumping out more half-baked modules does ED+DCS any good, and where is the next-generation of "the best flight simulation" would come from (spherical earth and FPS optimizations aren't game changers either). 

Edited November 9, 2024 by AndrewDCS2005

[Snappy]

On 11/4/2024 at 8:02 PM, Silver_Dragon said:

All previous years, on january, we have a roadmap about the actual develop plans on DCS World for 2024 and beyond.

On modules (only missing WW2, and the future Mig-29 module, that last, never planned to 2024).

And the core:

And we have to only two mounts to first, the dinamic campaign december report, and the new 2025 "roadmap". About 3rd partie "priorities", that is not a Nick or ED issue, has a 3rd party issue about that companies develop plans and releases.

 

sorry but these roadmaps are basically useless PR stunts and the information in them cannot be trusted anymore . They are off by years at best.

 

Its pretty obvious that either ED is either overwhelmed by the development backlog or simply keeps seriously overestimating their own capabilities.Or both.

To give just a few examples: by their own words, they estimated to release MAC (which is now dead) latest Q4 2021. And that was already years after the original 2018 (if I remember correctly) announcement trailer.

Source : https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/news/newsletters/d5bb893019c9a8c047d07a678b211c55/

 

Another example: The improved GFM flight model for AI.

ED expected implementation for fixed-wing AI aircraft in 2022. Now we have almost 2025 and there has been almost zero information anymore on the subject at all.

Source::

https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/news/2021-12-03/

Lets not get into how many other things were supposedly just around the corner and never materialised so far.

OP has a valid point but  sadly I doubt an interview with Nick would bring anything but more of the marketing speak  that I lost trust in long ago in DCS context.

 

Edited November 9, 2024 by Snappy

[cfrag]

9 hours ago, AndrewDCS2005 said:

ED will continue to charge fixed price per module

IMHO that was the only important and strategically relevant point in the entire interview. ED is a business, and their goal is to make money. Since they stick to an one-off (single charge per model versus other income streams) they must sell modules. Which modules sell well? New ones. So ED regularly pumps out new new modules to generate revenue. In the past years, they have more and more shifted to selling their modules at the earliest possible time, well before the product is finished, as "Early Access". Since sales are highest when a module is 'fresh', their sales revenue slumps shortly (some 6 months) after release. Investment into that EA module is withdrawn and invested into the next candidate for high return on investment. Hence the many half-finished modules in ED's catalogue that IMHO slowly start to tarnish their reputation as a quality outfit. If you own a map or module or tech that is still "EA" then there's a high likelihood that it won't improve much 6 months after initial release.  

Everything else we heard in that 'interview' was irrelevant to me. ED need to make money to pay their investors. Everything else is window dressing. There is no business-related "commitment to product quality" (see half-finished modules still languishing in EA after 6 years), but there is a commitment to profit for their investors, there is commitment to return on investment. That's how businesses are run. ED don't overestimate their development backlog. It's irrelevant for developing the next module, and that is their focus. Look at Afghanistan's schedule slipping while Iraq is being pushed to sales. Don't ask, so ED don't have to be economical with the truth. We all know what is happening, and it is expected as much as predictable. 

A "fixed price per module" revenue stream tells you all that you need to know. To me, the rest of the interview may well have been titled "please tell me some comforting lies". Yes there are tons of interesting things that could happen. But they won't unless there is a cold, hard business case to support it. And finishing modules, completing maps, improving technology or developing infrastructure (ATC, dynamic campaigns, better ground AI, you name it) simply don't have the numbers. So don't ask Nick to lie to you. We all are old enough to read a business case. So let us be clear-eyed about this:

Unless ED change their business model, there's no need for another interview. "Hard questions?" There currently are none. We already know all the answers. We may not like them - but we know all that there is to know. 

 

Edited November 9, 2024 by cfrag

[Gary]

cfag,

Whilst I largely agree with your post above regarding EA, I disagree with the line "there is a high likelihood that it won't improve much 6 months after initial release"

The flagship modules (presently F18, F16 & Apache) do benefit from, I'd argue, significent continued improvements long after the initial 6 months - but I get and agree with the point you are trying to get across in the main.

It would also seem logical to me that "some" infrastructure improvements, or additions, are definately worth ED investing in. Simply because these additions would likely result in an increase in player numbers and interest and therefore module sales too. (Dynamic Campaign being the obvious example)

[cfrag]

4 hours ago, Gary said:

Simply because these additions would likely result in an increase in player numbers and interest and therefore module sales too. (Dynamic Campaign being the obvious example)

The fact that DC has been talked up for over a decade now and hasn't seen the light of day pretty much puts that hypothesis to rest. Sad truth: there's next to no money in DC. Put another way: if there was an indication that DC would *significantly* increase module sales (sheer player numbers don't count. Player retention doesn't either. ED needs daily module sales), we'd have it by now. DC is viewed by ED as an edge case for a small, albeit vocal, slice of the pie. There may be the occasional investment into DC, and it is definitely going to be talked about -- in glowing terms.

Talk's cheap. Delivery is hard. Businesswise, DC won't swim: Take a napkin, jot down an earnest guess how many additional modules ED would sell if DC became part of the DCS package. That's the marginal business value, before subtracting dev cost. Compare that to the number of sales the next hot module will bring (say, a Tornado or Typhoon or other iconic craft), and assume that both share the same dev cost. Nope, dynamic campaigns don't have a chance in hell to get financed. 

That sad, perhaps ironic, thing is that ED know their Achilles heel, and they said as much in a 2023 interview: DCS suffers from a lack of gaming content, a lack of player engagement. Missions are sterile, there's really nothing for pilots to do beyond training and getting better. A Dynamic Campaign could be giving players something to do, give them purpose. The immense success of quasi-dynamic missions like "Foothold" and "Pretense", where players have some agency and purpose in the overall engagement spotlights the tremendous potential.

Yet, although a seismic shift already, that alone won't move the needle far enough -- ED would need to better engage the community, actively support mission creators, server hosts, provide much, much better creation tools, infrastructure, and push the 'story/purpose' mode of DCS. Given ED's IMHO exceedingly low-skilled communication credentials, though, it for me indeed makes more sense to bet on stamping out new, half-baked modules, tech and maps for as long as possible. 

Edited November 10, 2024 by cfrag

[BIGNEWY]

A reminder to all in this thread, please keep to our forum rules, treat everyone with respect. 

 

thank you 

[buceador]

On 11/9/2024 at 11:58 AM, Snappy said:

I doubt an interview with Nick would bring anything but more of the marketing speak

Of course! Those 'interviews' are essentially PR.

[BIGNEWY]

1 minute ago, buceador said:

Of course! Those 'interviews' are essentially PR.

They were not scripted, Nick was talking very frankly in the interviews. 

It seems no matter what we do some people will always find a negative to focus on. Its best to push on a do the best we can. 

thank you 

[buceador]

2 minutes ago, BIGNEWY said:

It seems no matter what we do some people will always find a negative to focus on

Of course this is the case.  ED is not a philanthropic organisation it is a business run for profit.  ALL businesses can expect criticism.  If you put yourself out there in the public domain then the public will criticise, that is a given.  I agree wholeheartedly with everything @cfrag has said and I imagine both you and @NineLine also agree with much of it, of course neither of you are at liberty to say so as you are employed by ED.  It is a mistake for the DCS customer base to think this is some kind of happy, extended family, it is a business.  MS released a flagship product 4 years ago, there was a lot of very vocal criticism about the absence of an intuitive replay system, it has taken them nearly 5 years to address that problem...   

[BIGNEWY]

28 minutes ago, buceador said:

Of course this is the case.  ED is not a philanthropic organisation it is a business run for profit.  ALL businesses can expect criticism.  If you put yourself out there in the public domain then the public will criticise, that is a given.  I agree wholeheartedly with everything @cfrag has said and I imagine both you and @NineLine also agree with much of it, of course neither of you are at liberty to say so as you are employed by ED.  It is a mistake for the DCS customer base to think this is some kind of happy, extended family, it is a business.  MS released a flagship product 4 years ago, there was a lot of very vocal criticism about the absence of an intuitive replay system, it has taken them nearly 5 years to address that problem...   

We have no problem with criticism, you don't have to look far to find negative feedback on any of our platforms, Nineline and I spend a lot of time passing everyone's concerns on to management, some people are more vocal than others and will repeat a narrative over and over however, I just hope they also remember to have fun and enjoy what we already have. We wont be able to address every issues in a timely manner, we have to work within our resources, and fix priorities may not match everyone's expectations, but we are working very hard, our change logs show our progress. 

thanks

[cfrag]

32 minutes ago, BIGNEWY said:

we are working very hard, our change logs show our progress. 

i believe that indeed, your change logs are a testament to your and your colleagues continued hard work on DCS. Few here (at least not I) doubt that you are diligently at work, furthering DCS, shaping the future - and I thank you for that: not just in words, but by purchasing modules, and investing >100 USD a month to host two DCS dedicated servers, and creating missions that I share with others. 

What can give people pause is not so much the amount of effort that ED invests into bettering DCS, but the focus. It's sometimes difficult to put reason to rhyme when we read that people are working on removable pilot patches and another new map when many of the aircraft I own (yes, I own all of them) are still in EA six years after I purchase them. It's ED's focus of work that becomes an irritant. Shining a light on why (ED is a business) helps to understand; my personal view is that some of your customer's irritation stems from the fact that we don't see what your (ED's) focus is and why. Much of the official communication IMHO doesn't help, and often (for me) exacerbates the issue. There's (for me) too much non-committal, if self-gratulatory talk about features like save-game and dynamic campaigns that, when looked at rationally, would already have arrived a long time ago if it was a focus of ED's aspirations.

IMHO, the people at ED are working hard, and like so many people here I show my appreciation by staying a loyal customer. Criticism comes with the territory, and please do not confuse my being critical of your efforts with thinking that you are lazy. I appreciate what you are doing - even if I wish that your efforts were directed more into the direction of fulfilling promises made: I regard each and every EA module that I own as a promise that you made to me to complete, and I intend to hold you to it because I think that you are good for it. Currently, I prefer that you keep your many promises made rather than selling us new, unfulfilled ones. After all, even the greatest of all people can only do so much, and I have many, many products of yours that require ED's fine people's attention.

So, thank you for your hard work, and please remember the promises you made.

Edited November 11, 2024 by cfrag

[Slippa]