DCS: Priority

[Kaktus29]

As the title says, what do you feel is the MOST needed thing to make DCS excellent.. and you can only choose 1 thing..

 

so if somebody puts a gun to your head and says : Choose 1 thing that DCS can repair/make/invent and this would be the final last touch and no more development after that, what would it be ? New module, A-G radar, ATC operations, Ground warfare expanded, Naval Ops, Logistics, Tactical play by controlling squadrons of planes with their respective "cooling time" after each flight or series of flights-using manpower hours to fix the planes, prepare them for next mission etc, Dynamic campaign.. etc etc..

 

Me personally if i had to choose only 1 thing DCS can do and then nothing ever again..it would be AI.. if AI would be able and i'm talking AI Strategy mind, not just one simple AI plane, more of a AI as in C&C building having the info of all vehicles, brigades, divisions, planes, logistics, and then making sensible decisions where to send what and based on battle results changing tactics and avoiding those routes and missions that were punishing and enforcing those that delivered results.. and then have this AI cascade to the each individual plane that works in a group so an assault on a convoy of trucks with 4 planes would be more sensible and smart than it is now when each plane drops 2 bombs on one truck in a 30 trucks convoy instead of maneuvering into place to make a single pass and unleash total inferno and kill 80% of trucks in a single pass and be done with it.. same with attacking Objects and group of objects like Airports, it would be nice to have sub-missions you can give to missions "Attack airports" so you can have:

-attack runway

-attack supply depots in airport (fuel, lubricants, machine parts, hangar where plane gets

fixed etc..

-attack hardened aircraft shelters-destruction of planes (if they are there of course)

-attack electronic infrastructure of airport (radar, EWR, air defense, jamming stations, etc

 

And then have real-time info when planning this in ME so you can see how many planes would be needed considering the size of airport/intelligence report of planes on airport/SAMs, etc.. and likelihood of success if you send so and so many planes there..

 

Also to be able to see on ME radius of plane with current weapon load-out how far they can reach and make template approaches possible without manually inputting way-points (lo-lo-lo, lo-hi-lo, lo-etc etc.. ) and see on the map how this affects radius of operation for the wing..

 

All this would be needed to AI can also make some sense of what are the tools to play with, and then my dream is make AI that can learn based on past experience)))

 

Of course all this would make sense if you can wage a war and not a simple mission, (difference being a mission lasts 2 hours and war usually at least 2 days with multiple sorties flown just to get info on things such as intelligence reports, enemy positions, enemy size etc)..

[Angel101]

You forgive the most important... (from my point of view)

 

-dedicated server

-multiplayer stability with tons of units and players!

[Kaktus29]

yeah, forgot that one, DEDICATED SERVER ..

and i guess MP stability with tons of units goes hand in hand with dedicated server so we can count that as one thing..

[Bushmanni]

What I'd like to see is DCS World that doesn't have game killing bugs introduced every so often that don't get repaired as soon as possible. P-51D tracer bug basically prevents larger scale MP dogfights and nothing has been done about it. It clearly isn't impossible problem as A-10s, Vulcans and Shilkas can pour out much more shells in the air than the Mustangs do without problems. Eye candy can't be more important than playability.

 

While I accept that things are like they are it astonishes me that EDGE isn't designed from ground up to enable collidable trees as that is a very important gameplay element that has been killing immersion and giving headaches to mission designers and players since DCS BS. You can't have fun gameplay with AI units near forests which reduces the options with mission design considerably. While I love the eyecandy of EDGE it won't be worth the wait if the tree problem doesn't get fixed. Other thing is AI that seems to be constantly getting broken somewhere and if it gets fixed it'll soon break from somewhere else.

 

My bottom line is that ED should pay more attention to working gameplay and keeping the main features playable and not kill all the potential with some strategically placed bug or lack of feature that renders lot's of other great features useless in practice. If the game becomes unplayable people find something else to do in the meantime and might forget about DCS.

Edited November 2, 2013 by Bushmanni
removed the reply for deleted post

[Kaktus29]

interesting, .. for now the poll shows people would be fine with a new module more than anything-meaning that most is happy with the rest of the architecture as it is..

 

me personally a better AI and more in-depth immersion that would follow from that is much bigger, i could have only Su-25 and if depth of the AI is improved i would be more than happy, we can have 10 new modules but if AI is stupid or no new infrastructure of the tactical play is put in its just dry and empty ..

 

i would like to have ground commander scream on radio "We are under attack from air, on this and this location, demanding air cover NOW!" .. when a tank column is under air assault.. so popping up smoke, more terrain cover, and calling for air cover or counter-batter fire on arty positions that are hammering armor columns.. So as you fly as CAP you get from command center a message from the ground commander telling you some shit is going down there and here..and you go to save their asses and make those A-10/Su25 go away..

 

i guess new graphic engine that would also increase STABILITY and enable much higher unit count in MP would be amazing, so we can avoid AI altogether and just have people do the tactical decision making..

 

somehow i'm afraid its not coming, .. its just to expensive, otherwise we would already have EDGE by now, i mean years are passing by, and we are basically playing a simulation of bolts and nuts instead of simulation of different doctrines, tactics, SAM deployment, management of battlefield etc.. something that DCS should be more attentive than making F-15 DCS or Su-25 DCS or whatever.. from a military point of view, what is considered more "realistic military simulation?" ..if you have Su-25 simulated with every bolt or you have radio, commanders, delay time, logistics, deploy time simulated overall in the whole ARMY of units..? i would say the latter is much more important to have an engine that simulates warfare, especially air warfare.. we have turned into a obsessive minuscule attention to getting planes simulated to the last bolt and forgetting the big picture.. the end result is flying a fully realistic military jet simulation in an empty sterile environment that does not respond to you unless scripted to the last bolt..

[armageddon]

why is the "new module airplane" listed on top and the "new module helicopter" at the bottom?

may be you wanted to influence the peoples choice so that they click more likely on the first option?

[Feuerfalke]

LOL..... who knows...

 

I long ago came to the conclusion that in games and sims what people THINK they want and what they ACTUALLY want are pretty different.

 

 

Well, the question is: "If only 1 thing you could ADD 2 DCS what would it be?"

 

So if only one thing could be added, I'd vote for an airplane-module as well.

 

 

If the question was: "What should be next?"

 

I'd certainly vote different.

[Kaktus29]

the choppers i added too late that's why they are on the bottom, no ill will intended..

 

i posed the question if only 1 thing you can change as in, if this is the last thing DCS would do before retiring what would it be.. to kinda force you to think what is the most annoying this right now in DCS that you can't live with if only 1 thing can be added/repaired/enabled etc..

 

to me, i couldn't care for new modules if only one thing can be done with DCS, ..its AI and AI only.. immersion is a must, without it i couldn't care if i am flying F-18C or F-22, or SU-35 totally simulated..since there is no immersion..

 

how close ED is to this i don't know, but if they wait for a bit longer they might get competition, more and more people are getting older and sooner or later i think the sim flying market will become bigger, just to think of China and India and if we put same percentile of people flying sims as in west and nominally the market will increase 600-700%.. enough to really make the bucks..and ED could very well see some western or other company pop up and take the cherry from nowhere..

 

Right now ED is like a beacon, showing to potential customers what works and what doesn't.. doing the homework for them, to an extent in much bigger headlights that it would be nice to be in, especially if no new depth is added to the simulation its bound to get ugly.. it's like soccer-football.. if you have 4 chances to score easy goal and you miss, its like you are begging to get defeated and to get a goal from the opponent..-and this is what usually happens.. if you don't score you receive..

[NRG-Vampire]

a moderator should add these 3 options more in this poll :thumbup:

 

-dedicated server

 

-multiplayer stability with tons of units and players

 

-fixing all the bugs :D

[kobac]

I would first of all want stability in DCSW. No more simulation crash, and then ED can later focus on the implementation of new aircraft.

[Pilotasso]

None of the above just bug fixing.

[cichlidfan]

None of the above just bug fixing.

 

This.

[derelor]

None of the above just bug fixing.

+1

[sobek]

This.

 

While i agree that it would be nice, it just isn't possible. Doing just bug fixing generates no return. At that point you don't run a business, you run a charity. Unless we all started to subscribe to ED.

[cichlidfan]

While i agree that it would be nice, it just isn't possible. Doing just bug fixing generates no return. At that point you don't run a business, you run a charity. Unless we all started to subscribe to ED.

 

The poll wasn't asking what was financially feasible for ED.

[=Thrust=]

Yes for multiplayer improving, and also a good Lobby arena to play competition directly inside, not actually DCS servers, but like old "Hyperlobby" its easier , made now only for IL2 (What a pity) :smartass:

[sobek]

The poll wasn't asking what was financially feasible for ED.

 

Well where is the point then? That hardly makes it a choice. :)

Edited November 2, 2013 by sobek

[genbrien]

anyway there is no point until EDGE is out and we say the perf/bugs/stability it has

[Pilotasso]

While i agree that it would be nice, it just isn't possible. Doing just bug fixing generates no return. At that point you don't run a business, you run a charity. Unless we all started to subscribe to ED.

 

The poll wasn't asking what was financially feasible for ED.

 

Bugs will stop people from playing and buying the game, it is then quite obvious it affects income to ED.

 

Its a management basic concept, output must come hand in had with quality because the absence of quality also costs.

[Bushmanni]

Not all bugs need to be fixed right away but there are some that have a big negative impact on gameplay. For example A-10C can live without CBU-87s but P-51D is having hard time with bugged guns. While you can't eat reputation it isn't something to be neglected.

[cichlidfan]

Well where is the point then? That hardly makes it a choice. :)

 

The lack of a point is generally implicit in every poll around here. :P

 

 

@Pilotasso, I do agree but I have yet to see a game vendor with similar thought patterns.

[RPY Variable]

I think the the we have to add the option "give me a fast mover and then do whatever you want to do!!"

 

In a normal situation I would chose the graphics engine. But DCS is a platform of military simulation, and we still don´t have the one thing that a attracts the majority of the simmer community. That would be the fast mover.

[Silver_Dragon]

But DCS is a platform of military simulation

 

Error, ever and ever....

 

http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=1480510&postcount=1

DCS stands for “Digital Combat Simulator”. DCS is a world simulation engine permitting the user to operate or direct a growing number of combat and civilian aircraft, ground vehicles and ships, from different historical eras, in different geographical locations and at different levels of fidelity. It is a true "sand box" simulation. DCS started with the Ka-50 and A-10C, but has recently grown to also include the P-51D Mustang and, with Combined Arms, a ground command and control tactical warfare component. Future products from The Fighter Collection and Eagle Dynamics in the DCS line are in development and will includes partner products like the UH-1H "Huey", MiG-21bis "Fishbed", T-2 "Buckeye", BAE "Hawk", and Mi-8MT-V2 "Hip".

[Tengah]

Simple analogy I have made here before and got flamed for but I dont give a rats I wills tate it again:

 

I buy a brand new factory fresh car from the local dealer, it's full of bugs and issues... I take the Fing thing back and rant & roar at the sales guy for selling me a heap of .... If the vehicle is that bad I demand either a new car or my money back.

 

I buy a piece of Software, it has bugs, I rant and roar. Will ED give me refund? Of course not. Will they give me a new simulator? Bwahahaha. No.

 

It's not unreasonable to demand Big Fixes no matter the financial cost to ED, that's living in the real financial world. People are fickle and the customer is still always right. If DCS falls on its face over game breaking bugs then you can have all the professed realism you like but if the sim doesn't sim then word will get around and Falcon BMS, PrePar 3D V.2 with TacPac / @War etc will go forwards. Listen to the customer, fix what is broken. That's market sense.

 

DCS World is a fantastic product and has a great future with some wonderful people behind it and backing it's growth (at this point) BUT it needs fixing, soon.

 

So yes, in the list "Bug Fixes" needed to be in there and yes it is a viable issue to bring to ED's notice whether they like it or not.

[141st_Gözcü]

New graphics -engine :thumbup: :joystick: