Rethink what DCS is. I dare you!

[dmatsch]

Incoming fire expected, but I'm starting to think that we have it all wrong.  I think that DCS was neither meant to be a flight simulator nor a combat simulator.

DCS is a Flight/Combat Simulator Simulator

The fun isn't actually flying/combatting, the "fun" is actually getting the simulator to function properly; the software IS the game.  User mods are just extra "quests" to complete to get/keep the game running.  Every now and then ED will throw in maps or EA modules that just barely work -- just to keep everyone playing the actual game of getting the software running properly -- again.  

Think that indie hacker game where you actually had to code in a console to play the game...

Thank you.  I'm off the soapbox now.  

 

TLDR:  There is more activity in these forums about how to fix, enhance, modify and overcome faults than there is actually FLYING and using the sim for it's purpose of digital combat flight simulation.  If ED doesn't see the previous sentence as the WHOLE issue here, then we're all doomed.  DOOMED, I tell you.

 

...For the forum topic:  I wish that ED would release a "DCS 3.x", that has 2025 graphics capabilities, functional AI, functional FM, functional weapons, populated maps, updated legacy maps, improved ATC and Carrier ops, more static templates, fully-functional modules and maps BEFORE release, EA < 1yr, DCE, updated ME and scripting engine, involve (not alienate) UNPAID module builders, implement all the promised changes for the past 10 years, AND finally, reign in the evangelists long term members on the forums.  All in one package.

I would even pay for such a new and improved DCS -> but only when it hit v3.5.

[plott1964]

Nice apocalypse therapy session. You’ve invented a new genre: meta-simulated ennui—DCS isn’t a sim, it’s a bug-hunt simulator. Cute. Reality check: some people indeed love the fiddly joy of installing mods and fixing LUA scripts; others actually enjoy flying and shooting stuff. Both camps exist. Want a polished “DCS 3.x” miracle boxed up with 2025 graphics, flawless AI, perfect carriers, and a worship-free forum? Great wishlist — drop it in Santa’s mailbox next to “unlimited development resources” and “instant QA for all third-party modules.”

If you want change that isn’t a rant-shaped prayer:

Pick three realistic, measurable improvements and push them with reproducible bug reports and community proposals.

• Stop asking for “everything” in one release; prioritize.
• Engage unpaid modders with concrete incentives (docs, tool access, communication channel), not broad insults.
• And while you’re at it, fix “its” vs “it's”—syntax matters when you want devs to take you seriously.
• We’re not doomed. We’re just dramatic, and drama doesn’t compile into features.

[scommander2]

21 minutes ago, dmatsch said:

I think that DCS was neither meant to be a flight simulator nor a combat simulator.

How about the combined arms?

[Kang]

34 minutes ago, scommander2 said:

How about the combined arms?

I'm fairly sure that even if any sort of deity exists, they are perfectly puzzled as to what exactly Combined Arms is supposed to be.

 

58 minutes ago, dmatsch said:

...For the forum topic:  I wish that ED would release a "DCS 3.x", that has 2025 graphics capabilities, functional AI, functional FM, functional weapons, populated maps, updated legacy maps, improved ATC and Carrier ops, more static templates, fully-functional modules and maps BEFORE release, EA < 1yr, DCE, updated ME and scripting engine, involve (not alienate) UNPAID module builders, implement all the promised changes for the past 10 years, AND finally, reign in the evangelists long term members on the forums.  All in one package.

I would even pay for such a new and improved DCS -> but only when it hit v3.5.

You know, it's fun to dream sometimes. A lot of people throw the word 'functional' around easily here, you know.
But really, thanks for the laugh.

[Silver_Dragon]

29 minutes ago, Kang said:

I'm fairly sure that even if any sort of deity exists, they are perfectly puzzled as to what exactly Combined Arms is supposed to be.

The problem is going around in circles about something that "never was" and that some people believed was something else. We are talking about a product that has been "closed/locked" since it was launched on 2012.

[Beirut]

2 hours ago, dmatsch said:

The fun isn't actually flying/combatting, . . . 

 

Maybe not in your house. 

 

In my house the flying is great fun. I flew yesterday and had fun. I'll fly tonight and have fun. And I'll fly tomorrow night and odds are I'll have fun again.

 

Because flying in DCS is fun. 

[Blackhawk NC]

I believe that Eagle Dynamics has set DCS into a death spiral because it does little to support REDFOR. They continue to develop and improve BLUFOR aircraft but provide nothing for them to fight against except AI. Plus they never actually complete any of the aircraft modules. They offer simplified versions of the SU-27 and J-11a with no modern Fox 3 missiles while constantly improving the AIM-120  and loading 10 of them onto an ever improving FA-18. The JF-17 is not a bad module but whenever the SD-10 get to good they dumb it down or break some other system on the aircraft. Many servers no longer even try to hide it. They don't even include REDFOR aircraft in their servers. DCS is destined to become a WWII sim or a PVE sim. They don't even try to get better. It is in a death spiral because it has no direct competition. One day a competitor will arrive and time will run out! Sorry for the rant.......

[Rudel_chw]

40 minutes ago, Blackhawk NC said:

I believe that Eagle Dynamics has set DCS into a death spiral because it does little to support REDFOR.

 

Have you considered that a given aircraft can fly on either "blue" or "red" sides? .. an F-16 can fly for REDFOR with a Venezuelan livery, a Mig-29 can fly for BLUEFOR with a luftwaffe livery, and so on.  You are putting on your own force-jacket when setting up your coalition's countries, instead of using your imagination and devising mission situations that are balanced for both sides.

[Blackhawk NC]

The problem is that almost no servers list an F-16 on the REDFOR. Almost never happens .......Who cares about Mig-29s in BLUFOR. It would be the last choice after FA-18 or F-16.....REDFOR doesn't have an effective Fox 3 missile besides the SD-10. The R-77 is a total wasted of wing space...Very limited range, very easily defeated. Death spiral.... 

[Rudel_chw]

46 minutes ago, Blackhawk NC said:

The problem is that almost no servers list an F-16 on the REDFOR.

 

Ahh, OK I didn't realize that you were talking about multiplayer servers ... I never fly on those because more than a simulation experience, it turns DCS into a gaming experience, and I have no interest in that, opting instead on flying single player with missions made by the community or myself.

[Tom P]

7 hours ago, dmatsch said:

TLDR:  There is more activity in these forums about how to fix, enhance, modify and overcome faults than there is actually FLYING and using the sim for it's purpose of digital combat flight simulation.  If ED doesn't see the previous sentence as the WHOLE issue here, then we're all doomed.  DOOMED, I tell you.

 

Unfortunately it's the same couple dozen people on this forum and we don't see the whole user experience since probably a majority of users don't know this forum is a thing. I think the issue is the team doesn't want to acknowledge the issues because there's to much on their plate already and instead of being open they rather be all smoke and shadows or hope the next shiny EA toy will distract us. 
 

2 hours ago, Rudel_chw said:

 

Ahh, OK I didn't realize that you were talking about multiplayer servers ... I never fly on those 

Yes multiplayer is and has been popular. Need to remember not everyone has the same play style as you. Having a redfor with the same aircraft and that has the same capabilities as you is lame or trying to restrict them because they don't fit in the red role sucks. "Oh you're F-16CM that's not meant to be a red aircraft only has AIM-120s as a BVR missile? ok here's only AIM-9Ms."  You cant disable datalink or remove the HMDs because eagle dynamics doesn't have the option to do that. So for example you can be on a cold war server in a F/A-18 or F-16 and rock a JHMCs with datalink all day long because there's no way to stop it. While the true Red aircraft are already at a disadvantage from the start.
PVP used to be really good a few years ago but like Blackhawk said, anytime a red missile became better, somehow the 120 is superior next patch. The SD-10 was great, now it's almost R-77 hot garbage. 
PVE BVR combat is a joke because the blue side is so OP compared to the red flaming cliff aircraft. "Oh no a Su-27 shot at me with an Fox 1... let me notch the radar quick and do a barrel roll" Or how it really happens. "Hmm got a RWR contact from a Su-27. Fox 3..... splash."

Edited 3 hours ago by Tom P
JHMCs detail

[Dangerzone]

7 hours ago, dmatsch said:

Incoming fire expected, but I'm starting to think that we have it all wrong.  I think that DCS was neither meant to be a flight simulator nor a combat simulator.

Firstly, I have already rethought of what DCS is previously. I had to in order to "maintain my passion and support" because what I wanted to achieve wasn't going to be possible to do with the level of support and focus on quality testing that ED is providing, which nearly brought me to the brink of walking away from DCS completely - until I lowered my expectations and change my thought on what DCS is... so I'm definitely open to re-thinking of what DCS is.

While I share a number (or honestly - most of the concerns raised) - I do believe DCS was meant to be a combat flight simulator. That's always been the goal. While there are definitely issues, I strongly disagree with the proposition that it's because DCS was never meant to be a simulator.

I think the problems that have occurred are from many angles. Some self inflicted, and others external. IDK how many developers and staff have been pulled away from DCS due to wars and conflicts going on at the moment, but it wouldn't surprise me if both COVID and the war has had a significant impact on ED that has reduced the amount of resources they have at their disposal. By how much, and what factor it impacts, only ED themselves would really know - we can only speculate. 

I think ED is also partly a victim of their own success. DCS has grown - significant in different areas that ED have tried to introduce into DCS - and as a result, I think we might be in a period of time where there's more than they can handle at the moment. ie: Seeing Combined Arms neglected as they focus on other areas - DCS really has become quite big from a development and maintain point of view.  The more functionality and modules, the more to maintain everytime a change is made. IDK where this leads to - but I'm darn glad that DCS still exists and is being maintained, even if not to a standard I would like. 

I can of course sit back as an armchair critic, and say what I would love to see change, which at the top of my list would include putting more focus onto Quality, Stability, and content creator support. I would love to see issues and bugs that they introduce with a new patch that wasn't there previously be treated as the highest priority - so we all had a reliable and stable platform, from the individual player, right through to content creators, but but it's easy for me to say when I don't have to balance the budget, pay the bills, or deal with who knows what challenges they face and what they need to meet in order to keep DCS viable within the limitation of the resources that they have. 

That's not saying that I don't think there's areas where ED could have significant improvement in (I obviously do). However, calling DCS as 'simulator simulator', and that the 'software is the game' as though it's a puzzle to try and solve to get it working is really more hyperbole. 

If it comes down to taking DCS as it currently is, or not having DCS at all - I'm going to try and focus on the things I can be grateful for more than the things I'm disappointed in. I think that's the only way really to actually appreciate DCS. We'll always find things that we don't like (and yes - in DCS's case we probably don't have to search too far  ) - but even with those - DCS is still an incredible and amazing product that I am so grateful for. In the end, 2 people can have the exact same experience with DCS, one being frusturated, and the other grateful depending on where they focus more. I've done enough living being frusturated - I'm trying to see what the other side is like with the glass half full instead.

Edited 3 hours ago by Dangerzone

[SloppyDog]

8 hours ago, dmatsch said:

Incoming fire expected, but I'm starting to think that we have it all wrong.  I think that DCS was neither meant to be a flight simulator nor a combat simulator.

DCS is a Flight/Combat Simulator Simulator

The fun isn't actually flying/combatting, the "fun" is actually getting the simulator to function properly; the software IS the game.  User mods are just extra "quests" to complete to get/keep the game running.  Every now and then ED will throw in maps or EA modules that just barely work -- just to keep everyone playing the actual game of getting the software running properly -- again.  

Think that indie hacker game where you actually had to code in a console to play the game...

Thank you.  I'm off the soapbox now.  

 

TLDR:  There is more activity in these forums about how to fix, enhance, modify and overcome faults than there is actually FLYING and using the sim for it's purpose of digital combat flight simulation.  If ED doesn't see the previous sentence as the WHOLE issue here, then we're all doomed.  DOOMED, I tell you.

 

...For the forum topic:  I wish that ED would release a "DCS 3.x", that has 2025 graphics capabilities, functional AI, functional FM, functional weapons, populated maps, updated legacy maps, improved ATC and Carrier ops, more static templates, fully-functional modules and maps BEFORE release, EA < 1yr, DCE, updated ME and scripting engine, involve (not alienate) UNPAID module builders, implement all the promised changes for the past 10 years, AND finally, reign in the evangelists long term members on the forums.  All in one package.

I would even pay for such a new and improved DCS -> but only when it hit v3.5.

The thing with DCS is that it is a Digital Cockpit Simulator. It'll give you a good experience inside the cockpit, but regarding the outside world, not so much. And that's it. ED has no focus on building a better AI, be it friendly or foe. No integrated air defense systems, no full on ATC experience. Unfortunately that real life like experience belongs to BMS. And it has been this way for the last 15 years. ED focus is on releasing module after module because that is where their expertise is at. Once I accepted this fact, I've learned to enjoy the game more for what it is, not for what I expect it to be. 

On the other hand, the thing that has been bothering me is the fact that lately DCS has become the "good enough" simulator. Where a module is released, and if it is good enough to fly and people have fun, ED will release it. The bare minimum today is acceptable. I remember when ED first released the A-10C, one of its main selling points, and something that ED would brag about, was that what we got on the sim corresponded to 90% of the real thing. ED cared. Cared about fidelity and details; today not so much. The Chinook was released in a pre-alpha state, with lots of basics features missing. Kola map, approved by ED, has the worst ground textures since FSX. And the Mosquito is celebrating its 4th anniversary without any further development. But hey, they are all flyable, people have fun with them, so why bother making them more detailed and faithful to the real thing. right?

And don't even get me started on the whole Razbam situation. My trust is gone. Today I saw a video about the C-130 cold start procedure. All look great, but again, will it be released in an almost finished state? I don't trust it will. Latest releases have been plagued by bugs and unfinished features. 

In the end, I believe that who gonna save DCS is the community. If only ED would be so kind to give modders more flexibility and access to create new things, this would take DCS to new heights.