I would pay my money for:

[Cali]

No competition!=you are forced to buy everything. ;)

 

Not true, you could jump ship to other games/sims.

[sobek]

Not true, you could jump ship to other games/sims.

 

I suggest you look up what != means on wiki. ;)

[Conure]

Irrelevant.

 

You make the best with what you've got. Bottom-Line: It's all about paying the bills at the end of the month - you tailor your business to ensure that you can do so and have a little left to spare. If there comes more competition, you adapt. Less, likewise. Does not pay pondering on 'what might have been'.

 

It's not irrelevant at all, of course they are on track in a solo market where fans of the genre are effectively forced to purchase or opt out of the hobby. With no major competitors, doing things like releasing new scenery well over a year after expected and using a several outdated engine is fine.

 

ED do some things well, customer care and meeting deadlines are not those things. If (when, more like, given the slow picking up the of genre over the last few years) a competitor arises, ED will find it extremely hard to keep its customers. At the moment they have the rare luxury of dominating the market. In any business, this rarely lasts if there is money to be made.

 

I very much hope a competitor does come up with a release; the stagnation of this genre has led to people using the same scenery for however many years, and an ancient engine which runs on one or two cores! The fact that this is accepted (and indeed, defended) is very sad. In the 90s, the genre utilised the cutting edge of technology available...Now (as with FSX) people have to OC their computers significantly beyond factory requirements simply because the software is out of date.

 

A Rise of Flight quality modern day engine would be fantastic, let's hope for our genres sake this is realised.

[sobek]

I very much hope a competitor does come up with a release; the stagnation of this genre has led to people using the same scenery for however many years, and an ancient engine which runs on one or two cores!

 

The fact that there are very little companies in this segment should give you enough hint as to how much money there is lying on the street, as well as why development is so slow.

[159th_Viper]

If (when, more like, given the slow picking up the of genre over the last few years) a competitor arises, ED will find it extremely hard to keep its customers....

 

And why do you think another competitor has not arisen? It's easy being an Armchair-Corporal is it not ;)

 

People tend to forget it's another persons livelihood we are sometimes callously debating about. A wee bit of subjectivity would probably lead to a lot more humility in these discussions, which would definitely not be a bad thing.

[Conure]

And why do you think another competitor has not arisen? It's easy being an Armchair-Corporal is it not ;)

 

People tend to forget it's another persons livelihood we are sometimes callously debating about. A wee bit of subjectivity would probably lead to a lot more humility in these discussions, which would definitely not be a bad thing.

 

Are you happy about the fact that there is no competition? Do you think a lack of competition gives us a superior product? The reason a competitor has not arisen is, most likely, because there is more money to be a made in simpler yet more appealing products. That does not mean that competition will not appear. There are some very talented people (PMDG, TACPAC etc) and I really hope they get an engine worthy of their skills!

 

I couldn't care for the livelihoods of ED employers if I chose an alternative product, any more than I would care for the livelihoods of a corner shop when I chose to shop at a supermarket. Utterly irrelevant.

[159th_Viper]

Are you happy about the fact that there is no competition?

 

Happy? No, why should I be. Sad? No. Just aware of the fact that there are nobody out there good enough to step up and do what ED/TFC do/have done to date.

 

Do you think a lack of competition gives us a superior product?

 

Irrelevant if one has regard to the fidelity of ED's products to date. They continue to improve with every reiteration. There are no inferior or superior benchmarks: I know that the Airframes they provide are the best that they can be at that stage in the developmental process - they are not released as sub-par products.

 

That does not mean that competition will not appear.

 

I do not deal in 'what-ifs'. I deal in the here and now.

 

I couldn't care for the livelihoods of ED employers if I chose an alternative product, any more than I would care for the livelihoods of a corner shop when I chose to shop at a supermarket.

 

Then what are you doing here? By posting here you have not chosen an alternative product: You have chosen to shop at the corner-shop. Conduct yourself accordingly.

[EtherealN]

This one or two cores thing is getting might old by now.

 

Most games actually do exactly that. Including massive-budget games. Remember that until 3.5, Unreal required devs to essentially hack the crap out of the thing to make it multithread at all (though if I remember right, there was a middleware company that actually sold middleware for this - a bit funny; that's a bit like a 3rd party selling Windows service packs... :P )... And that's something that's running big-budget games from some of the biggest companies not only in the industry - but in the world... :P

 

The reason you don't "notice" it in most games is that they're not really using the CPU for much anyhow, so the inherent problems in handling multithreaded software design doesn't impact them. It does impact this thing though.

 

There are some people on this forum that do know a thing or three about that topic, I suggest you dig up the previous discussions on the this and read what they have to say. :) (Alternatively read on other sites about what multithreading means for a software project.)

Edited April 13, 2012 by EtherealN

[MemphisBelle]

If I may say somethings to this...so I´d like to compare the situation and the dev Team with...lets say Visceral games (Deadspace 1 and 2) also known as EA Redwood Shores.

 

They delivers Deadspace 1 on October 20th 2008, Deadspace 2 came out in january 25th 2011, makes round about 2 years and 2 months ( if I haven´t misscalculated).

 

What will that mean?

Well it means, that a developer team with a great Publisher in the background and a focus on simply one story has created 2 games in roundabout 4 years (devtime for DS1 included)

 

We got Blackshark, FC2 and Warthog nearly in the same timeframe. Not to forget BS2 and the products they are under development right now (Deadspace 3 is not even proved to be created at all...there are simply rumors)

Next to this, ED is also developing software for the military market. So the focus is splitted on 2 markets on the one hand and developing hard core simulation software (which can not be created better by other devteams at this time) on the other hand.

 

Also besides this, ED is selling their products to a more than fair to be called price. Comparing the pricerange of Deadspace 1 and 2 and the ED products we´ve got a market ruling developer, who does not take benefit of the fact that they ARE Ruling the market. They sell the software to a price, others would do for just an Addon.

 

We all should keep the ball flat and should be thankful to ED that they providing us their software in that a close timeframe and to that a small price.

 

That might be a blast in the ear of the one or other, but really see the fact here.

 

ED is provoding information way closer as other dev teams are doing. ED is providing Software in way closer time frames than others are doing. The only problem is that we cant see that.

We dont get any info for a few month and getting mad about this. The usual time for update informartions is several years before any new info comes out (mainstream games dev teams)....OK exept Treychard and the other Team, with their CoD Series. But come on...Call of Duty is nice but I wouldn´t waste money for this...I buy these games when I will get them for just a few bugs from second hand games store.

 

ED is really on track. I havent seen this before as well, but considering all the side arguments, ED is really doing a great job in a acceptable time frame...and I am very sure that once they finished all the core thingies, side prodcuts, we´ll get the modules in a closer time distance than today...

Edited April 13, 2012 by MemphisBelle

[Conure]

Happy? No, why should I be. Sad? No. Just aware of the fact that there are nobody out there good enough to step up and do what ED/TFC do/have done to date.

 

We will see upon release of the Tacpac, Combat-Helo etc. My understanding is the VRS superbug is every bit as good as DCS minus combat. That will now change.

 

 

Irrelevant if one has regard to the fidelity of ED's products to date. They continue to improve with every reiteration. There are no inferior or superior benchmarks: I know that the Airframes they provide are the best that they can be at that stage in the developmental process - they are not released as sub-par products.

 

The engine is sub par to almost every modern software release in the last 5 years as it lacks full multicore support.

 

 

I do not deal in 'what-ifs'. I deal in the here and now.

 

Then I am glad you do not run a business of any kind, you wouldn't last long!

 

 

Then what are you doing here? By posting here you have not chosen an alternative product: You have chosen to shop at the corner-shop. Conduct yourself accordingly.

 

Whilst I understand that some people would equate criticism of a product with irrational hatred, as a paying and generally happy customer I have every right to be here. That is not to say that if a superior product were released I wouldn't jump ship until ED upped their development deadlines and quality control. Even if I did have to go through the mental anguish of knowing I was part responsible for ED redundancy on the commercial side of things.

 

Ultimately, lack of criticism leads to stagnation. Stagnation is what we have here - surely you do not mean to argue that developing multicore support would have been a worse choice than FC3 and whatever the classic fighter is?

 

There is growing interest in this genre, soon there will be direct competition to this software. This can only be a fantastic thing.

Edited April 13, 2012 by Conure

[MemphisBelle]

The engine is sub par to almost every modern software release in the last 5 years as it lacks full multicore support.

 

you took notification of this what ED is about to do? They are aware about the lacks of CPU usement and other technique relevant stuff and I think that we can be sure that those things are on ED´s todo list.

[159th_Viper]

The engine is sub par to almost every modern software release in the last 5 years as it lacks full multicore support.........surely you do not mean to argue that developing multicore support would have been a worse choice than FC3........

 

Honestly?

 

:megalol:

 

As EtherealN said, old indeed!

[Rikus]

Really? What more is there to shooting down a target than turning on a radar and designating it, then pushing the pickle down?

 

Here's the answer: Nothing. Between an FC2/3 F-15C and a DCS F-15 there would be no difference in this basic operation. You may have more radar modes to work with in terms of searching targets, sure - that gives you more options. But you can still just flip the radar on, leave it as is, put the cursor on target, designate, and fire.

 

PS: Actually, the F-15C has been quite popular in FC2. Not sure where you got the idea that it wasn't.

 

Better flight model, non landing script, so you can touch with one wheel, for example

[GGTharos]

And that affects shooting missiles how exactly?

 

Better flight model, non landing script, so you can touch with one wheel, for example

[GGTharos]

The engine is sub par to almost every modern software release in the last 5 years as it lacks full multicore support.

 

The engine is old, which is why it is being updated. Unlike certain studios, ED doesn't have the resources to rewrite the engine whole-sale every 2 years. You're basically complaining about nothing, especially given the fact that ED is working at it with every iteration.

 

Ultimately, lack of criticism leads to stagnation. Stagnation is what we have here - surely you do not mean to argue that developing multicore support would have been a worse choice than FC3 and whatever the classic fighter is?

 

There is no stagnation, and frankly, what's worse or better to develop is not up to you. Of course, it appears that to you, anything but 'full multi core support' is stagnation - that isn't how things work in reality though, as apparently ED is running a successful business. I also find it amusing how you call development of FC3, P-51 (and you didn't mention CA or Nevada aka EDGE) and things that come with them stagnation.

Perhaps you shouldn't be telling people how they wouldn't last long in business when your own judgement is entirely blinded by your own pet peeve?

 

There is growing interest in this genre, soon there will be direct competition to this software. This can only be a fantastic thing.

 

There already is, and guess what - ED is doing fine.

[Conure]

The engine is old, which is why it is being updated. Unlike certain studios, ED doesn't have the resources to rewrite the engine whole-sale every 2 years. You're basically complaining about nothing, especially given the fact that ED is working at it with every iteration.

 

 

 

There is no stagnation, and frankly, what's worse or better to develop is not up to you. Of course, it appears that to you, anything but 'full multi core support' is stagnation - that isn't how things work in reality though, as apparently ED is running a successful business. I also find it amusing how you call development of FC3, P-51 (and you didn't mention CA or Nevada aka EDGE) and things that come with them stagnation.

Perhaps you shouldn't be telling people how they wouldn't last long in business when your own judgement is entirely blinded by your own pet peeve?

 

 

 

There already is, and guess what - ED is doing fine.

 

 

ED is doing fine....And yet, don't have sufficient resources and man power to create updates in a timely fashion? Hmm..Nobody is asking for an engine rewrite every two years, perhaps just an update to something this side of 2005? :megalol:

 

Are you serious when you say there is no stagnation, or was that a joke?:noexpression:

[Conure]

Honestly?

 

:megalol:

 

As EtherealN said, old indeed!

 

Old, utterly relevant, and still not adequately addressed :thumbup:

[159th_Viper]

ED is doing fine....And yet, don't have sufficient resources and man power to create updates in a timely fashion?

 

What updates?

 

And please don't mention multicore until you have done what EtherealN suggested and read up on the issue. Or is that the entire bastion of your argument? If so, you're in trouble :megalol:

[Conure]

What updates?

 

And please don't mention multicore until you have done what EtherealN suggested and read up on the issue.

 

I have done, the technology has been available for years yet still no support. Updates such as new terrain, multicore support, bringing the graphics into this century (like IL2, RoF, FSX + Addons granted, X-Plane 10), some form of dynamic campaign - all of these things would bring a plethora of new people to the simulator, but obviously since ED are doing SO well in their civilian enterprise, they don't even need more customers right?

 

I have never ever seen you criticize ED, are they, in your opinion a company worthy of utter devotion with no room for critique? You see, that's all I'm doing. Perfectly legitimate critique.

 

I think (with good knowledge of the workings of business and methodology behind increasing profit) that there are implementations that would drastically improve the size of the customer base. If you look to other forums there are many people who would love to move from F4 if there were some form of dynamic campaign, alternatively many would move from FSX if DCS had better visuals...

 

If (I would argue, when) somebody comes along and takes note of this, ED will be in trouble on the civilian side. No doubt their military business is second to none.

 

This idolising a company with very little experience in the civilian commercial sector is very dangerous, I hope the management at ED has more sense than some people here, yet given the general feel of the ED/TFC project, I don't hold out much hope.

[Kuky]

Conure, although I agree with you on many points I think you need to relax a little... It's how it is and like Cali said to me, go enjoy what you can now and if and when something better comes out we all go for it ;)

[GGTharos]

Are you serious when you say there's stagnation, or was that a joke?

 

Again, your pet peeve is blinding you to reality.

 

Are you serious when you say there is no stagnation, or was that a joke?:noexpression:

[Speed]

I have done, the technology has been available for years yet still no support. Updates such as new terrain, multicore support, bringing the graphics into this century (like IL2, RoF, FSX + Addons granted, X-Plane 10), some form of dynamic campaign - all of these things would bring a plethora of new people to the simulator, but obviously since ED are doing SO well in their civilian enterprise, they don't even need more customers right?

 

I have never ever seen you criticize ED, are they, in your opinion a company worthy of utter devotion with no room for critique? You see, that's all I'm doing. Perfectly legitimate critique.

 

I think (with good knowledge of the workings of business and methodology behind increasing profit) that there are implementations that would drastically improve the size of the customer base. If you look to other forums there are many people who would love to move from F4 if there were some form of dynamic campaign, alternatively many would move from FSX if DCS had better visuals...

 

If (I would argue, when) somebody comes along and takes note of this, ED will be in trouble on the civilian side. No doubt their military business is second to none.

 

This idolising a company with very little experience in the civilian commercial sector is very dangerous, I hope the management at ED has more sense than some people here, yet given the general feel of the ED/TFC project, I don't hold out much hope.

 

I think what Viper means, is that by talking about multi-core utilization and DCS, you're just doing this:

 

 

In fact, that dead horse has been beaten so many times, it's probably horse burger by now.

 

In short: what is usually said is that the ED team says they want to utilize multiple cores more effectively, it's just difficult to program and will take time.

[159th_Viper]

I hope the management at ED has more sense than some people here, yet given the general feel of the ED/TFC project, I don't hold out much hope.

 

Given your general feel, you mean.

 

Why don't you leave the running of the ED/TFC business to ED/TFC. They seem to be doing all-right to date. Oh wait, I said that at the beginning of this conversation, did I not......Go figure!

[GGTharos]

Not quite - or at least, depending on what difficult means - their chosen path is to replace parts of the engine piecemeal. Take the sound engine for example, that lives in its own thread now.

 

I would imagine most new parts of the engine will be implemented this way. Besides all that, ED does a whole lot more stuff behind the scenes than people are informed about - I'm sure you know that every feature takes time, and the more complex the overall project is, the more time it can take to add and debug a new feature. And even when this isn't the case, you pick which feature to add first, etc, and sometimes you just can't put in /everything/ you'd like.

 

People ask for a huge amount of stuff, and often have no clue whatsoever as to what it takes to make such things happen. They then go on to provide 'valid criticism', which really isn't (it's based on an incomplete picture, tarnished by pet peeves and comparisons to other games that just don't do the same thing most often). They also seem to assume that they're telling ED things that ED doesn't know. Not that customer input is without value - ED have often implemented things they were asked for.

 

In short: what is usually said is that the ED team says they want to utilize multiple cores more effectively, it's just difficult to program and will take time.

[Conure]

Are you serious when you say there's stagnation, or was that a joke?

 

Again, your pet peeve is blinding you to reality.

 

Not really sure what you mean by this - I have seen multiple comments re stagnation. The same scenery for how long? In fact I'm not even sure...How long have we been using this map and texturing? I understand that it was expanded slightly, but ultimately how long have we been flying the same bit of Georgian coast?