Concerned Customer

[Nate--IRL--]

Its just that I thought that the DCS branding meant AFM...apparently not:(

 

Not yet.

 

Nate

[Vitesse2l]

USMC Trev - Good Posts.

 

I'm wondering what happens when developer X puts lots of time and money into DCS TakeYourPick and ED's QA says 'Almost but not quite - go back and fix it'. It's fine for ED to produce a beta and tweak it, but will they allow their third party suppliers that luxury? As we have seen the real testing starts when the buying public get the software on their drives and we know how it can go with new releases!

 

Not whining or criticizing, just wondering how it'll pan out. I'm sure the right people on all sides have thought long and hard.

[metalnwood]

I hope the forum doesn't get too bogged down with a lot of this stuff. I know, you can just ignore threads but more and more threads are getting taken over with a conversation that goes the way of being too concerned about the future direction of ED.

 

I can empathise with a lot of it. I am wondering how it might all piece together, how the battlefield can be coherent when it looks like some time vortex sucked random stuff over the course of 70 years to present day.

 

The fact of the mater is there is nothing you can do about it but wait and see. You all feel invested in it, thats good but when you start to feel too entitled to it then it's time to have a rethink.

 

Would be nice for the board to have the feel it did when we were all having fun and not beating our chests.

[cichlidfan]

I can empathise with a lot of it. I am wondering how it might all piece together, how the battlefield can be coherent when it looks like some time vortex sucked random stuff over the course of 70 years to present day.

 

The fact of the mater is there is nothing you can do about it but wait and see. You all feel invested in it, thats good but when you start to feel too entitled to it then it's time to have a rethink.

 

Well said. That is the really important point. ED is going to run their business in a way that makes sense to them. Since we are not privy to the details (which is normal for most any company), we really can't say what is or is not a good plan.

 

However things work out it should be an interesting few years.:)

[Dimebag]

I think the reason there is such concern over the direction of DCS is it SEEMS that ED are giving over control of the direction of DCS to third party developers and yet ED are yet to even show the customer what they are working on. The problem seems to be that of a boundary issue; customers love both ED and DCS, and see it as the last bastion of quality modern combat flight simming, as the saviour of the industry. They know ED have what it takes to make a great simming arena, however it seems now DCS has been saturated by third party developers, some of them either unknown or untested, who have the potential to make or break the DCS name.

 

My greatest concern is that of consistency. As we are a smaller community, we all need to be on the same page when it comes to multiplayer, especially now with the development of combined arms and DCS World, which brings the potential for a greater expansion of the multiplayer environment, but at the same time, requires a large proportion of online members to be working in unison. With the development of so many third party products, There will no doubt be different camps developing, playing favourites with certain aircraft and excluding others, which will also create a rift within the community. What we really need is an environment which brings us all together rather than splits us apart, and that is my fear for the future of DCS.

[Grimes]

 

especially now with the development of combined arms and DCS World, which brings the potential for a greater expansion of the multiplayer environment, but at the same time, requires a large proportion of online members to be working in unison. With the development of so many third party products, There will no doubt be different camps developing, playing favourites with certain aircraft and excluding others, which will also create a rift within the community.

 

 

I have mixed feelings toward this issue. One reason is its a natural division that is created when you give users options to create their own multiplayer experiences. This natural division already exists within the current products offered from ED, with the P-51D being the obvious outsider. However the choices of aircraft in FC2 also saw favoritism as a common occurrence, simply put the Su-25A, Mig-29A, and Mig-29G have vastly fewer flight hours compared to other aircraft. Another reason is that it is a combat sim with very different aircraft, each of which have their own strengths and weaknesses, and scenarios should be designed around each aircrafts capabilities. A P-51D doesn't fit in with a modern day CAS or CAP scenario. Likewise the Ka-50 simply isn't fun to fly when enemy fighters are around. So its a question of making scenarios which utilize the most possible aircraft while still being fun for those aircraft.

 

I do hope we see servers dedicated to P-51, while others are modern day CAS, and others that are more of an "all out war" scenario encompassing as many aircraft as possible.

[Teapot]

I do hope we see servers dedicated to P-51, while others are modern day CAS, and others that are more of an "all out war" scenario encompassing as many aircraft as possible.

 

Well, if DCS or a 3rd party dev team starts to model WWII era fighters .. we'll get exactly that.

[mig29movt]

Why is it that we worry obsessively about something that hasn't happened yet? The dire scenario's that play out in our minds are nothing ... no substance ... just a whole bunch of negative conjecture with no basis on reality :cry:

 

Don't worry, be happy ...

 

I once bought the IRIS MiG-29 for FS2004. Well, it was the last thing I actually payed for...

It was horrible and now IRIS is developing Top-secret fighter like the F-15E or even the F-22, which is ridiculous in terms of "realistic to the switch" - to say the least.

 

It's just going a little bit to fast comparing to how many products ED has released: 3 Aircraft in how many years?

 

I don't think anyone can do the same in a few months but I'm open for a surprise :noexpression:

[genbrien]

I once bought the IRIS MiG-29 for FS2004.

you're talking about something that was done about 8 years ago....

I think they have more knowledge by now:book:

[leafer]

I too was initially upset tat the Hornet was given to a third party developer

 

็Huh? When?

[BIGNEWY]

็Huh? When?

 

read this

 

 

http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=90050

[leafer]

After reading that thread, my "Huh?" is still valid.

[cichlidfan]

After reading that thread, my "Huh?" is still valid.

 

What?! You haven't heard of them? Really, I mean they have a FaceBook page and it even has a picture of an aircraft model on it!! :lol:

[leafer]

LOL I don't know what to make of that thread. On the one hand you've got Wag saying it's legit and on the other we've got this waterproof fabric maker having a go at a flight sim business. I'm so confused right now.

[G-Lock91]

ED communication at its finest gents :music_whistling:

[Nate--IRL--]

ED communication at its finest gents :music_whistling:

 

What do you want to know?

 

Nate

[SmokeyTheLung]

we've got this waterproof fabric maker having a go at a flight sim business. I'm so confused right now.

 

I picked a bad week to stop sniffing glue :lookaround:

[tobaschi]

i think the following process would be good:

random 3rd party dev can build which plane, vehicle, campaign, copter or map they ever want at quality they ever want. They can sell it how ever they want. At the end the customer decide if its good or not.

 

But ED should offer them also some kind of certification program (on product base), for example, Iris (<3spanky) is releasing the F-15E, ED is testing the modul and it's quality if it's matching the DCS Quality standards the product should get a "DCS certified" logo, should be added to the ED webstore and perhapes it's basemodel should be added to the DCS World base model collection (for easy multiplayer compatibility). In reverse ED should get some cash for each sold F-15 modul (license costs).

 

But that's just my idea .. sorry for my broken engrish ; )

Edited June 17, 2012 by tobaschi

[joey45]

I would think that ED has a quality standerd for 3rd parties inplace.

[BIGNEWY]

What do you want to know?

 

Nate

 

ED communication at its finest gents :music_whistling:

 

 

I would assume some customers would like reassurance that standards wont drop and ED has a system in place to check standards.

 

just reading between the lines :)

[G-Lock91]

What do you want to know?

 

Nate

 

That's disconcerting if you have to ask that knowing how people are feeling on the forums lately. :huh:

[EtherealN]

just reading between the lines :)

 

That is something people shouldn't do. :P

[LawnDart]

But that's what the forums are for. . . reading between lines. :P

[Nate--IRL--]

That's disconcerting if you have to ask that knowing how people are feeling on the forums lately. :huh:

 

OK........ what EXACTLY do you want to know.

 

Nate

[G-Lock91]

OK........ what EXACTLY do you want to know.

 

Nate

 

Everything we all know you won't tell us! :thumbup: And you know exactly what that is.