The June 14th Update Discussion Thread

[basset]

- Dedicated server

- Skeleton animation for infantry

 

DROOL!!

[Boberro]

About ATC and comms. ED could just copy Falcon's BMS wide ATC comms tree and make it even bigger.

I hope they will be at minimum of BMS level :)

[Wolfie]

yeah, sure - and DCS: Spetsnaz :P

 

 

LOL, who's laughing now? :music_whistling:

 

DCS: Arma, here we come! I think half the Arma crowd will buy just for a look at it.

 

 

- Dedicated server

- Skeleton animation for infantry

 

DROOL!!

 

ED finally woke up and smelled the CASH!

 

NO! Having ragdoll effects is way more important. *sarcasm*

 

Screw dat! I want to see heads rolling and limbs flying!

Edited June 15, 2013 by Wolfie

[Wolfie]

Poor update, very poor update... :(

 

Hey, there's always FO :music_whistling:

[Hotarubi]

So none of these count as bug fixes to you ?

 

1.2.3 :

 

 

 

1.2.4 :

 

They do mate, but fixing things to be more realistic is a hard work and we all understand they need time for it so I believe everyone would be glad if they got the playability fix first, and then improvements to a WORKING sim next week (we have had few updates in a short notice). Instead - they seem to forget to fix some things selectively. But fixing something that worked in 1.2.3 and was accidentaly broken in 1.2.4 should be easy to revert back. And I've seen numerous people here warning about the fact that Su25T is practically useless since most big servers rely on them to carry out the key goals in a mission. That makes most of the current missions on those servers not possible to finish for one or both sides - and that has killed the point.

It's all about sorting out the priorities - and playability and replayability had always been an important factor for those who want to stay on the market.

 

And, frankly, your argument is "passe". We are not talking about past, it is a fact that ED has done great work, or I would be on IL2 forums tonight - we are talking about the fact that they're avoiding to fix a little piece of code - while they surely have the old version (what programmer deletes easily). What is the reason for 2x promising a fix and 2x not giving it to us? If someone explained that it is hard to fix it and why - that would be fair (as they explain many other things to community). What is the reason for not reverting a piece of code that they MUST have in a previous - working condition?

If this continues - I will start to doubt they don't want to fix the free module in purpose......... Anyone with a brain should wonder why are they avoiding so persistently to revert code that worked like a charm from a new - broken version. We are not talking about creating a game engine, or changing few parameters to make the sim more balanced or realistic for an inch. We are talking about not reacting to an error that had rendered at least half of missions that roll on big servers - useless.

It's nice to have a BVR fights, dogfights - but where is planning, where is tactics now? Nowhere. Because it's useless at the moment. And that makes ED's product not functional. I frankly don't believe anyone should treat it's own product that way.

Improving is one thing - but fixing errors is something other. You can improve some parts as much as you want - but if you stay def at the fact that community is begging for a small fix in weeks and weeks - that is just not good for ED in the first place. We can all go out and give ourselves a good match of flying around and shooting around for fun. But does ED want this to be a shooter game or a tactical combat simulator? EDIT: Let me rephrase - Does ED want new people to come and treat DCS as a shooter game or as a tactical aerial combat simulator?

Edited June 15, 2013 by Hotarubi

[BigfootMSR]

They do mate, but fixing things to be more realistic is a hard work and we all understand they need time for it so I believe everyone would be glad if they got the playability fix first, and then improvements to a WORKING sim next week (we have had few updates in a short notice). Instead - they seem to forget to fix some things selectively. But fixing something that worked in 1.2.3 and was accidentaly broken in 1.2.4 should be easy to revert back. And I've seen numerous people here warning about the fact that Su25T is practically useless since most big servers rely on them to carry out the key goals in a mission. That makes most of the current missions on those servers not possible to finish for one or both sides - and that has killed the point.

It's all about sorting out the priorities - and playability and replayability had always been an important factor for those who want to stay on the market.

 

And, frankly, your argument is "passe". We are not talking about past, it is a fact that ED has done great work, or I would be on IL2 forums tonight - we are talking about the fact that they're avoiding to fix a little piece of code - while they surely have the old version (what programmer deletes easily). What is the reason for 2x promising a fix and 2x not giving it to us? If someone explained that it is hard to fix it and why - that would be fair (as they explain many other things to community). What is the reason for not reverting a piece of code that they MUST have in a previous - working condition?

If this continues - I will start to doubt they don't want to fix the free module in purpose......... Anyone with a brain should wonder why are they avoiding so persistently to revert code that worked like a charm from a new - broken version. We are not talking about creating a game engine, or changing few parameters to make the sim more balanced or realistic for an inch. We are talking about not reacting to an error that had rendered at least half of missions that roll on big servers - useless.

It's nice to have a BVR fights, dogfights - but where is planning, where is tactics now? Nowhere. Because it's useless at the moment. And that makes ED's product not functional. I frankly don't believe anyone should treat it's own product that way.

Improving is one thing - but fixing errors is something other. You can improve some parts as much as you want - but if you stay def at the fact that community is begging for a small fix in weeks and weeks - that is just not good for ED in the first place. We can all go out and give ourselves a good match of flying around and shooting around for fun. But does ED want this to be a shooter game or a tactical combat simulator? EDIT: Let me rephrase - Does ED want new people to come and treat DCS as a shooter game or as a tactical aerial combat simulator?

 

While your reasons and assumptions about coding are simple and sound great in theory, in reality that is not always the most practical, and in some cases, more detrimental way of dealing with the "bug". As you upgrade, implement new items, add more features, it is sometimes necessary to change the way the game handles things. When you change how the game handles things, or change how things flow, its very easy to break something that used to work. In some cases, its necessary to rewrite the broken object from scratch because of how its now being handled by the game. So, while the coder may have a back up script of the previous item, for example an explosion, that backup may simply not work or cause a fatal error that crashes the game entirely.

 

Wags has stated that they have been scouring the bug sections and gathering a list of the most troublesome bugs that they have had hanging around to try and squash as many as they could before moving on to 1.2.5. I am sure they took a look at the explosions, cbu 97, and other related effects. I am sure it is not as simple of a fix to just roll back to a previous working version of them. It may be so broken that this is the best we can do for right now, until they can release an update to the game engine itself that can handle the effects better.

 

The current engine we have is about 10 years old and was stated before that its pretty much tapped out. This is why they are creating the new IG/EDGE. Since I have started playing this game, I have seen a TON of improvements and it just keeps getting better. Keep up the good work ED.

[SkateZilla]

So we can have Infantry dancing Hotkeys....

[JetlinerX]

I dunno. There just does not seem to be enough content to warrent an update. First off, dont get me wrong, I appreciate your work, and the fact that you are doing these updates so frequently, but... they just dont seem like they are really worth it? I understand I've only been here about 1 month (active), and never seen a 1.2.__ update, and maybe those are bigger and more worth it... but personally, I think the updates either need to be fewer, with more content, or (if you are up to it, and I dont blame you if you're not) more content, in the same time frame.

 

I dunno... either way, my intention is not to troll, maybe I am just misunderstanding the concept. I dont wish to start a flame war either, if I am wrong, feel free to tell me... but no keyboard warriors, pl0x. ;)

 

But dont even get me started on my rant about the sales...

[Ells228]

There were so many complaints over the years that ED didn't post updates so Matt pledged that he'd do them weekly.

A lot of history on this one.

[JetlinerX]

Ah, I was not familiar with the history. Knowing that, I now support them more, as it makes more sense. Thanks Ells.

[Wolfie]

The future of the BATTLEFIELD Simulation is starting to look better. Looks like we just may get a REALISTIC successor to ARMA. Been waiting 20 years for this.

[jaykinch]

I like more updates

I think it's good once they fixed something they pretty much get it out to us

And kinda shows us that they are working hard and part of the community

More software company's should do it this way

 

Roll on dcs 2.0