ED's move into WWII simulation - a newcomer's perspective

EtherealN · January 31, 2012

I find many of your (maybe not only yours) posts quite aggressive and I'd consider reporting you for... "aggressive stance" but since you are a mod yourself... better I open a beer.

This just means you don't report me to the mods - instead, you report me to Groove or EvilBivol-1. :)

I don't agree that there's an aggressive defence, but it is possible that the taxing nature of answering the same issue several times (which is part of why they ended up in the FAQ, which does not always get read...) might be touching some nerves. (If you have the same thing asked again and again, and the same erroneous information disseminated time and again in spite of corrections, it is easy to become frustrated.) I'll make an effort to count to ten and perhaps step outside for a smoke before responding in the future. Thanks. :)

Unfortunately I'm out of beer and generally try to not be drinking while on the forum, but thanks anyway. :)

mmaruda · February 1, 2012

Ok, look. Plain and simple - ED is one of the few developers of combat sims today. 777 has their WWI thing, 1C/Maddox/Ubi/Whatever do WWII (and fail to deliver), Thirdwire occupies light jet sims part. Currently there is no competition and no alternative, and this is unlikely to change within the next five years. So, like it or not, those of us, who enjoy modern aircraft in a combat environment with high realism are left with ED. The forums exist, so we put our feedback here. Dismissing negative feedback with BS arguments like "the only way to ever get a fully optimized product is to never add any features" is the same as saying "we don't care". And that stick has two ends - especially that ED does not make 9 mil sales on release like Activision.

Me and other people expressed their concerns. It's not a big effort to post in the forums, but still it takes some time and some effort. The engine is poorly optimised by today's standards and it's a fact, no argument is going to change that, and I'm not the only one complaining. P-51 not fitting a modern jet conflict scenario is also a fact just as Flaming Cliffs 3 seems an attempt to sell people the same product for the third time. We can either get along and reach a consensus where the developer and the fans communicate and the products get better and and the community grows, or we can argue and see where it leads us.

All I'm trying to say is, flying the Mustang with a low framerate, with nothing to shoot at cannot be compared to fighting FW-190s, covering B-17s in a 10-year old game, and a clickable cockpit is not going to change much in that matter. If ED want's to make some quick and easy cash, DCS Su-25T is the way to go. With the current state of the engine and the current game concept, the P-51 seem only a waste of time and effort.

Sorry if I did not sound nice, that is just my opinion on the matter - I've been with ED products since Flanker and LOMAC and had great fun with them, but currently it's what it is.

Nate--IRL-- · February 1, 2012

If ED want's to make some quick and easy cash, DCS Su-25T is the way to go.

As much as I'd like to see DCS Frogfoot, quick and easy does not belong in the same sentence as DCS. Also out of all the sims you could have mentioned you've missed the biggest selling, FSX - I see the Mustang as attempting to enter that market and attract 3rd part Devs, much more than an attempt to enter IL2's market. That is not a waste of time and effort - and if 3rd parties get interested it will benefit us all greatly. The Mustang/A-10/Ka-50 also highlights the flexibility of the engine in simulating very different types of aircraft to a high quality.

I don't understand why some people insist in taking the narrowest view possible in pigeon-holing DCS as a vehicle to a Fast Jet sim only. It can be much much more.

Nate

Edited February 1, 2012 by Nate--IRL--

EtherealN · February 1, 2012

So, like it or not, those of us, who enjoy modern aircraft in a combat environment with high realism are left with ED. The forums exist, so we put our feedback here.

And your feedback is very welcome. But when the announcement says that development of DCS P-51D does not preclude continued parallel development of the coming jet fighter, it means exactly that. So our point is that concern for the modern jet side of things is not relevant to this.

Dismissing negative feedback with BS arguments like "the only way to ever get a fully optimized product is to never add any features" is the same as saying "we don't care".

Actually, no, they're an admission of the fact that no code is ever perfect. We are talking about software that is millions of lines of code long (okey, I don't know for sure, I don't have access to the source, but you get the point). Whenever you add a feature, you add new code - this is code that has not had the same time for optimization as the old code, simply because it's new. This is the standard problem in software development of when to go into codefreeze - that is, a point when the only thing permitted is optimization and bugfixes. As an example, if ED had gone the industry standard route (as I know it - though my background is as a journalist in the gaming sector), you would for example never have seen cockpit shadows in A-10C. They were a new feature, requiring the development of a new cockpit system.

That's the big problem - do you stop giving your users new features once you've made the sale and focus only on fixes and optimizations, or do you also give them new features and accept a hit on performance and reliability? Not an easy thing to decide, and I'm actually happy I'm not the one making those decision.

The engine is poorly optimised by today's standards and it's a fact, no argument is going to change that

That's the thing though - compared to what, in this same sector? Compared to what is commonly called a triple-A product in this industry, like Mass Effect or Rage etcetera? Sure. But realize that those are developed by companies that have a fulltime QA department twice the size of the entirety of ED, a marketing department equalling ED, and support from some of the biggest companies in the industry.

It all has to be in context. And maybe it would be better if ED completely dropped all ambition at adding features post-release and did nothing but bug-fixes. I don't personally think so (I love the new cockpits for one!), but you are within your right to state a differing opinion on that. But I, as a fellow customer, might not agree! (And yes, in case you didn't know: I'm a fellow customer. Eagle Dynamics has never paid me a single dollar - I got a signed box-copy of BS1 for my B-day, that's the full extent of my compensation. :P )

Perhaps that is the point? I suspect it might look more "official" than it is when we moderators are speaking, but it isn't official. We're just customers like you who happen to spend too much time on this forum. :)

P-51 not fitting a modern jet conflict scenario is also a fact

Agreed. The difference is that I don't expect it to be. I look at DCS P-51D as specifically DCS P-51D. It's a great bird and fun to fly. Whether it's worth the money is up to you to decide - remember that as of yet the price hasn't even been decided.

All I'm trying to say is, flying the Mustang with a low framerate, with nothing to shoot at cannot be compared to fighting FW-190s, covering B-17s in a 10-year old game, and a clickable cockpit is not going to change much in that matter.

Well, the market itself disagrees with you. As it looks, DCS P-51D appears to be slated as a direct competitor to A2A Mustang - which has nothing that you mentioned. In fact, you can't even shoot other P-51's down.

That's another point: if you feel that this doesn't target you as a customer - fair enough. I totally get that. But please realize that this is not different to a jet-jockey deciding he won't purchase Black Shark because it's a helicopter and he isn't interested in what Black Shark offers. This is all bigger than both you and me.

If ED want's to make some quick and easy cash, DCS Su-25T is the way to go. With the current state of the engine and the current game concept, the P-51 seem only a waste of time and effort.

That's what we have been trying to say: no, it isn't.

It doesn't fit what YOU want out of DCS. Fair enough and true. But that's not all DCS is. That's the point. ;)

Here's a question: if ED is able to make profits with DCS P-51D, and perhaps leverage that profit towards hiring more developers... Do you still object to it's existance, even though this happened without a single dollar leaving your pocket?

Bearitall · February 1, 2012

Here's a question: if ED is able to make profits with DCS P-51D, and perhaps leverage that profit towards hiring more developers... Do you still object to it's existance, even though this happened without a single dollar leaving your pocket?

Can't make a point any stronger than that one....:music_whistling:

Yurgon · February 1, 2012

EtherealN, can't rep you anymore, but I couldn't agree more.

WynnTTr · February 1, 2012

Well said Ethereal.

I don't see what the problem is either - we're still getting our fast jet, Nevada, CA, FC3 as well as the Mustang in parallel.

joey45 · February 1, 2012

"You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to EtherealN again"

+1

MACADEMIC · February 1, 2012

As the topic starter, I'm fascinated by some of the negative opinions about the P-51D announcement around here. I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one who will come to ED/DCS for the single reason that they will release this product, so this means more and new business for ED. More business means more funds for developments means more business means more funds...as long as ED stays true to their acclaimed principles of delivering high fidelity simulations, how should a successful expansion have negative consequences for the fan base, whatever area of aviation they fancy? To the contrary.

I personally wish that the P-51D will be a huge success and allow ED to grow, produce more aircraft faster and provide all the optimisations that are being asked for.

Where's the problem?

MAC

Toxe · February 1, 2012

Just found this thread today and I think the OP is excellent, as are a lot of the pro DCS Mustang arguments.

Sorry but IMHO the people who cry about the development of DCS Mustang are either short-sighted or dont get that ED is developing it in parallel alongside their other products.

NineLine · February 1, 2012

Only issue with the OP would b the title, yes the P51 is a WWII era fighter, but you can hardly say that DCS is moving into WWII simulation, and I think thats what confuses people. If I am not wrong DCS is trying to build their different series into modules that can be plugged into one big virtual battlefield. So they are building a plane (or whatever) that is able to be inserted into the world that already exists with their sims.

This module that can plug into the current world happens to be a WWII era fighter. (wouldnt surprise me that this was released as a 20-30 dollar addon)

The only way this fighter will fly in any sort of WWII era environment is if or when we get tools to be able to add user created content.

Or at least thats how my little mind understand it all :)

Either way... more planes... double thumbs up.

MACADEMIC · February 1, 2012

The only way this fighter will fly in any sort of WWII era environment is if or when we get tools to be able to add user created content.

That's mostly what I meant to say, and very much hope this will be so. Even if DCS would have only opened the door to this possibility, I'd still consider this a move into WWII simulation as they're making planes from that period.

MAC

Edited February 1, 2012 by MACADEMIC
typo correction

159th_Viper · February 1, 2012

That's mostly what I meant to say, and very much hope this will be so....

User-created content:

What's needed is for the Community to pick up on this and drive forward. Heaven knows I would have if I only had the talent - sadly it appears to reside elsewhere :D

Nate--IRL-- · February 1, 2012

User-created content:

What's needed is for the Community to pick up on this and drive forward. Heaven knows I would have if I only had the talent - sadly it appears to reside elsewhere :D

It might also be helpful for ED to move from very expensive proprietary 3d software (3d Studio) to something more open and accessible such as Blender. IMO this is major hindrance to community involvement.

Nate

NineLine · February 1, 2012

It might also be helpful for ED to move from very expensive proprietary 3d software (3d Studio) to something more open and accessible such as Blender. IMO this is major hindrance to community involvement.

Nate

I agree, but at this point any plugins would be better than what we have, over course, it doesnt make sense really till the EDGE engine is implemented I guess, or course now I am speaking of things I do not know... something I am good at :)

Underleft · February 1, 2012

It might also be helpful for ED to move from very expensive proprietary 3d software (3d Studio) to something more open and accessible such as Blender. IMO this is major hindrance to community involvement.

Nate

I agree. I have a year left on my Student version of 3d Studio Max. I wouldn't mind making DCS mods with MAX, as it's all I know, but there is no way I'll be buying it when the student version runs out. I don't even know what the rules are using the student version to make mods, even if they are free.

Frostiken · February 1, 2012

I don't mind the P-51, but I don't want them to 'move to WW2'.

I thought it would be cute to have the P-51 be a fictional 'modernized' version with some enhanced radios, a rudimentary multipurpose display, and the ability to employ a small selection of weapons, maybe some unique, some not. A basic INS system, maybe a TV targeting device, a more functional HUD... Sort of an AT-802U light. Something to make it not feel so out-of-place in the DCS world.

Edited February 1, 2012 by Frostiken

EtherealN · February 1, 2012

Sort of an AT-802U light.

Your mind... I am infiltrating it! :D

But no, this is a "real" P-51, as per FAQ and announcements. :)

February 1, 2012

there's no way they can do a "realistic" p-51 with the features they've announced for it. if it was a modern civilian plane, why does it have live ammunition? if it was a ww2 military plane, why does it have modern navigation technology and why is the pilot modern usaf?

this is already purely a fantasy scenario thing so i don't you should worry too much about how it'll fit into the main dcs world. it won't. it's going to be part of flying legends.

sobek · February 1, 2012

why does it have modern navigation technology

Who said it has?

159th_Viper · February 1, 2012

........why does it have modern navigation technology.......

Clothing aside......Where on earth did you get 'modern navigation technology'?

Edit: Sniped.

104th_Crunch · February 1, 2012

I don't understand why are you so angry in defending this P51 project?

Ahh... you just want the P-51D so you have an excuse to use those niftty goggles and hat you have in your avatar :pilotfly:

104th_Crunch · February 1, 2012

As the topic starter, I'm fascinated by some of the negative opinions about the P-51D announcement around here...
Where's the problem?
MAC

The problem... we all have preferences and as it was said, the market is bigger than any one person's preferences, but some of us have been flying Lock On for a long time and we are modern jet fans, plain and simple. We have waited through FC1, A-10C, Ka-50 and FC2, now we must wait through FC3, Combined Arms, and P-51D before we see a DCS Jet fighter. While parallel tasking makes sense, for a small team such as ED some of their effort is going into these things before the next jet and for some of us, that blows big time. We are also the fans that help put ED where they are now.

In the end we want ED to succeed at whatever they do, but it the waiting for a jet sim fan is disappointing to some of us.

WynnTTr · February 1, 2012

The problem... we all have preferences and as it was said, the market is bigger than any one person's preferences, but some of us have been flying Lock On for a long time and we are modern jet fans, plain and simple. We have waited through FC1, A-10C, Ka-50 and FC2, now we must wait through FC3, Combined Arms, and P-51D before we see a DCS Jet fighter. While parallel tasking makes sense, for a small team such as ED some of their effort is going into these things before the next jet and for some of us, that blows big time. We are also the fans that help put ED where they are now.

In the end we want ED to succeed at whatever they do, but it the waiting for a jet sim fan is disappointing to some of us.

Can you tell me what the next jet is going to be? Cos it sure sounds like you know the ED team well and how they operate/should be operating and to what deadlines.

Or perhaps you missed the part where Wags said:

5- The next US fixed wing jet DCS aircraft is being worked on in parallel.

and

The development of the P-51D and other Flying Legends series aircraft definitely does not preclude the continued development of modern aircraft.

104th_Crunch · February 2, 2012

Yes, we don't know all the business reasons ED may have to do what they need to do. I have said that before in other posts, and you are right, people need patience for this sort of thing.

At the same time, what ever parallel work you can pull off, there will still be aspects of a release that will have to go through bottlenecks in ED's processes for releasing a game. I may not know their business inside out, but I am qualified to talk about running small to large businesses. Since you mention it, it is part of my career.

In the end, regardless no matter how legit, waiting for something while other things are released can be a letdown.

Edited February 2, 2012 by Crunch

Sign In

ED's move into WWII simulation - a newcomer's perspective

Recommended Posts

EtherealN

mmaruda

Nate--IRL--

EtherealN

Bearitall

Yurgon

WynnTTr

joey45

MACADEMIC

Toxe

NineLine

MACADEMIC

159th_Viper

Nate--IRL--

NineLine

Underleft

Frostiken

EtherealN

213

sobek

159th_Viper

104th_Crunch

104th_Crunch

WynnTTr

104th_Crunch

Recently Browsing 0 members