New DCS World Review € SimHq

[Anatoli-Kagari9]

http://simhq.com/_air15/air_544a.html Edited January 22, 2013 by jcomm

[Adi]

Thank you!

 

What did you make of the third party paragraph at the bottom of the third page?

[c0ff]

From the review:

First of all, DCS World has a multiplayer authentication concept that links your activation code to a new login (user name, email, and password), separate from your DCS web account

Not true.

It's the same account.

 

Forum accounts are separate and yes, it's not good.

[ALDEGA]

In v1.2.2 (.7286) we lost the P-51D Mustang sub tab that controlled helper systems for making safe and controlled takeoffs. Here's to hoping it'll come back in a later update for those out there who have a problem taming that high-torque beast of a plane.

It wasn't removed, rather the required file may disappear after updating ... (cfr. http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=1600388&postcount=26)

[c0ff]

It wasn't removed, rather the required file may disappear after updating ... (cfr. http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=1600388&postcount=26)

 

"the required file may disappear after updating" means that file was removed from the game intentionally.

The intention could be wrong, but it's does not seem to be a bug in the updater. If it is, it should be reported as such.

[ALDEGA]

From this thread:

 

I found it is much easier to take off with version 1.2.2. Maybe that's why the auto-rudder and take-off assistance options have disppeared in version 1.2.2., right?

 

???? Do you really fly DCS? :)

If you are not kidding please check if you are not in GAME mode. If you are in REAL mode please make a screenshot of OPTION screen and report a bug - there were no changes neither in options nor in FM.

[Derbysieger]

The P-51D sub tab wasn't removed. It's still there on my end (1.2.2.7570).

[Weta43]

I feel like a grumpy old mand writing this (Sorry EP - you can't please all of the people all of the time :))...

I think that review shows the problem with very familiar users writing reviews - they write about what specifically interests / annoys them about the game at that time, not generally about the game.

 

This one has a single meagre little paragraph (3 lines) on SP / SP missions, (where most of those that buy the product will end up spending their time), very little about why one would want to play DCS online, and acres of type devoted to the failings of the MP set-up (MP being something that most buyers never get near).

 

I suspect EinsteinEP actually enjoys MP in DCS.World / the DCS series, but he completely forgets to say so.

 

The first sentence from each paragraph :

"Unfortunately, in DCS World 1.2.2, this multiplayer experience is somewhat marred by a number of issues."

"One of our own staff was out of play due to authentication issues, even after stepping through all the instructions,"

"Once you get past the authentication hurdle, there are still a number of lingering issues"

"Although multiplayer connection stability of 1.2.2 is remarkably better than previous versions, there are still intermittent disconnects"

"My article and forum post history shows that I'm a big fan of Eagle Dynamics,"

 

I think that Forum posts, and the summary:

"DCS World is a must-have for simulation enthusiasts who want as real as you can get in their home PC. There are still some rough edges, especially in the multiplayer experience, but Eagle Dynamics has already demonstrated they are committed to continuous improvement, so I fully expect the experience to only get better."

do show this, but unfortunately I think this is taken as assumed knowledge (Most readers will never have / never will see EP's forum posts)), and the author forgot to put any of that admiration / enjoyment into the review...

[Cali]

To me, it was a good review, but I only play mp. With all reviews, it's just that person's opinion of it.

[evilnate]

Decent review, but I wish it was done after the MP stability and locality issues are sorted out.

 

In my opinion, DCS world is still in beta. Or maybe the beta modules bring it down grade it to a beta. He did acknowledge that the ED team is hard at work and committed to continuous improvements.

[spikenet]

Good review, yes. His conclusion is nice, short and on the money. Yes, they could wait for things to be resolved but at this rate you would never read a review on it..

[c0ff]

The P-51D sub tab wasn't removed. It's still there on my end (1.2.2.7570).

 

Yep. The sub tab was missing only for a couple of days. Fixed in 1.2.2.7122

[Cali]

Decent review, but I wish it was done after the MP stability and locality issues are sorted out.

 

In my opinion, DCS world is still in beta. Or maybe the beta modules bring it down grade it to a beta. He did acknowledge that the ED team is hard at work and committed to continuous improvements.

 

Maybe he or someone will do another review when the new patch is out. I wonder how long DCS world is gonna be in beta......maybe a long time.

[Cedaway]

Maybe he or someone will do another review when the new patch is out. I wonder how long DCS world is gonna be in beta......maybe a long time.

 

It's not beta, it's 'long term support' ;)

[Hellfire257]

I personally think he is bang on. There are far too many issues for everything to be birds bees and butterflies as a few people would like to imagine.

[Weta43]

^^ Are you primarily an MP or SP player ?

[EinsteinEP]

Thanks to all, for the good feedback. Especially yours, Weta: I *did* forget to really describe how much I enjoy this sim, in both single player and multiplayer, and someone reading this article may not get that. I will need to do better next time and I'm glad you called me on it.

 

As for the separate multiplayer and DCS accounts, I distinctly recall having "Invalid Serial Number" issues because my A-10C and Black Shark activation codes were linked to different logins: different login name, password, and email account. This thread here describes the solution to this problem that many of us where having. Did one of the updates make it so that it's not possible to bind an activation code to a different account than the one the code was purchased with?

 

The Specials tab of my Options page does NOT have the helper options for P-51D and I *definitely* am playing in sim mode. I've downloaded ophiuchus's option file (thanks for the link!) to restore it, not that I need it or anything <cough cough>, but I'm slightly surprised the autoupdater doesn't correct it through the normal update process. Strange.

 

Anyways, thanks again for the read and the feedback. You can always PM me your comments too, here or over at SimHQ.com!

 

See ya 'round!

[c0ff]

As for the separate multiplayer and DCS accounts, I distinctly recall having "Invalid Serial Number" issues because my A-10C and Black Shark activation codes were linked to different logins: different login name, password, and email account. This thread here describes the solution to this problem that many of us where having. Did one of the updates make it so that it's not possible to bind an activation code to a different account than the one the code was purchased with?

 

What you describe here is the problem, when you have 2 modules having serials binded to 2 different accounts. No wonder that DCS World with both of the modules has troubles logging into 1 of the accounts - one of the serials will be invalid (owned by another account actually) no matter which account will you choose. That's why you need all this serial unbinding/account merging stuff.

 

What your review states:

First of all, DCS World has a multiplayer authentication concept that links your activation code to a new login (user name, email, and password), separate from your DCS web account

 

I see here a completely different statement, meaning that you need a new, completely different account to be able to log into MP. Which is not true.

[TC]

< snip > ... I *did* forget to really describe how much I enjoy this sim, in both single player and multiplayer, and someone reading this article may not get that. I will need to do better next time and I'm glad you called me on it ... < snip >

 

No need for excuses, a review is not a sales ad: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/review

 

MP is the one and only reason for DCSW as the SP user couldn´t care less if he get´s updates for 3 different modules he may have bought or just via one. And in case of CA JTAC implementation I think MP is required?

 

MP is also the one and only reason that will keep the game alive - after the SP user has played the provided missions for the nth time.

 

Having said that I do confess that I am a SP user (at this time) and I can tell you there are plenty and plenty of issues for us too. So much actually that I downgraded to the last available (Standalone) version of A-10 for now, since that is what I´m playing only anyway.

 

So, all in all a fair review wich I find actually not critical enough ...

 

Cheers

TC

[Snoopy]

Having said that I do confess that I am a SP user (at this time) and I can tell you there are plenty and plenty of issues for us too. So much actually that I downgraded to the last available (Standalone) version of A-10 for now, since that is what I´m playing only anyway.

 

If you have so many issues have you posted in the "Bugs and Problems" section? Not saying issues don't exist but just saying there are plenty but not being specific won't help testers verify and devs fix them.

 

DCS World: http://forums.eagle.ru/forumdisplay.php?f=185

 

A-10C: http://forums.eagle.ru/forumdisplay.php?f=114

[TC]

If you have so many issues have you posted in the "Bugs and Problems" section? Not saying issues don't exist but just saying there are plenty but not being specific won't help testers verify and devs fix them.

 

Nope I haven´t.

However, I do know some have been reported (and may get solved sometime), some have their origin in the anchient code (and may never get solved) and some may be an issue for me, but don´t bother anyone else (and thus most likely never get solved).

 

If I would have an "ED Tester" tag, or would have written the review I surely had been more precise, but as I am able to make my way around the issues that bother me, I can just concentrate on doing that rather than arguing with the fanboys :smilewink:

 

Cheers

TC

[EtherealN]

MP is the one and only reason for DCSW as the SP user couldn´t care less if he get´s updates for 3 different modules he may have bought or just via one.

 

Incorrect.

 

DCS World with A-10C and Ka-50: 5,73 GB.

A-10C and Ka-50 standalones: 9,18 GB.

 

If assuming same "pace":

 

DCS World with A-10C, Ka-50, CA, FC3, P-51D: 6,2 GB.

A-10C, Ka-50, CA, FC3, P-51D standalones: 22,95 GB.

 

Now extrapolate this to a couple more products, and limited SSD storage... ;)

(Note: I went with download sizes, I don't have actual installs of the old standalones to compare with.)

[TC]

Incorrect.

 

Now extrapolate this to a couple more products, and limited SSD storage... ;)

 

Incorrect.

 

- DCSW does not require to have a SSD

- DCSW does not even recommend to have a SSD

- No currently available module does require to be installed on a SSD

- No currently available module is recommended to be installed on a SSD

http://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/index.php?ProductId=21&end_pos=137&scr=product&lang=en

 

- SSD storage is as limited, or rather unlimited, as any other storage solution.

 

Correct is, ED does find the GB savings of the users install(s) that much important that it´s nowhere even mentioned:

http://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/world/

 

It does list however:

 

• Powerful mission and campaign editors (has issues)
  
• Multiplayer (has issues)
  
• Massive inventory of air, land and sea combat units and weapons (has issues)
  
• Advanced AI (has issues)
  
• Fast mission generator (has issues)
  
• Dynamic weather and seasons (has issues)
  
• Training missions (has issues)
  
• Mission replay system (has issues)
  
• Pilot log book
  

As I´m neither writing a review, nor am I a tester I havn´t checked for (all) of the above listed issues myself. Sure enough however one can look into the relevant forum and find them there and I must not repeat them here.

 

Seriously tho, if you can´t come up with something better than "HD footprint" why don´t you just keep quiet and let the thread drift onto page 12 ?

 

Cheers

TC

[Cedaway]

why don´t you just keep quiet and let the thread drift onto page 12 ?

 

Cheers

TC

 

Sorry, couldn't resist...

 

Maybe because he's in the tester team and is very aware of what DCS-W really is.

Maybe because he tried to take the example of the 'shortest' storage available, SSD.

Maybe because he gave that info AS an example, punctuated with smiley.

Maybe because he just want to help the community, as moderator does.

 

But you're OK with the statement that nothing is 100% perfect in DCS-World. That's why ED is working hard to patch the sim regularly in the same time they are developing new modules (aircraft, scenaries and graphic engine).

 

Oh, just to say: SSD provides much shorter loading time the classic HDD. Maybe can you try that once. ;)

[EtherealN]

TC, perhaps I should elaborate a bit:

 

MP is the one and only reason for DCSW as the SP user couldn´t care less if he get´s updates for 3 different modules he may have bought or just via one.

 

Please consider this statement of yours carefully. Through it, your postulate is:

 

1) The ONLY reason to have DCSW is Multiplayer.

2) SP users have no reason to care about DCSW vis a vis standalones.

 

This fails scrutiny on both points. First of all because there are reasons to want DCSW that are unrelated to MP. Ease of use (no need to switch programs when wanting to fly a different module), ease of download (no need to download patches to core files multiple times), ease of maintenance (no need to keep track of multiple installs). And there are more of course.

 

Note that I did not say that DCSW "requires" an SSD. I have however indicated one extremely good reason for an SP player to want DCSW and it's modularity as opposed to separate standalones: SSD users have limited storage space. You say that "SSD storage is as limited, or rather unlimited, as any other storage solution", but this is patently false!

 

Prices quotes from newegg:

 

Intel 520 series 480GB SSD: $500

WD Black 1TB HDD: $100

 

Thus, with an gaming-oriented SSD, you get 480GB of storage at the same price as you'd get 5TB of storage using a gaming-oriented HDD. Now, as you are probably aware, not all people care to spend 500 dollars on half a terabyte, wherefore most SSD users have smaller drives: 120-256 being the common range, to house Operating System and some games.

 

Basically: storage on SSD's is only as "unlimited" as HDD's if money is not an object. However, as I am again sure you will agree, most people do consider money to be an object, since they are in the bad habit of also needing to cover rent, food, electricity, clothes, kids, gasoline, newspapers, vacation, tuition, a savings account, pension fund etcetera etcetera.

 

Further, your list of DCS World features is misplaced - you seem to be under the mistaken belief that this is a list of "differences compared to standalones". It's not. It's a feature list of the DCS World program.

 

And by the way, the examples I listed a couple paragraphs up?

They're things customers have been asking for. Including SP customers.

 

A) People like not having to close the program, and start another, just because they fancy flying a Ka-50 mission after their recent A-10C ride.

B) People like limiting the size of downloads, since a lot of people use the internet under rather draconian ISP-imposed throttling and bandwidth caps.

C) People like being able to update their entire DCS experience in one go, rather than re-doing a patch "dance" for every single product.

 

So please don't ask me to "keep quiet", I do know a bit or two about this product and the community surrounding it. :)

Edited January 25, 2013 by EtherealN