So what's everyone's take on the future of DCS?

[Snoopy]

I have nearly no understanding why it takes light years to design a cockpit and a body and modify some avionics data so every plane gets its own characteristics.

 

I stopped reading after this sentence.

[tarracta]

I stopped reading after this sentence.

 

Then it's your problem!

 

Other games are coming with dozens of dashboards, cockpits and panels and it didn't take years of development just for *this*... Often these are not made with every detail, but they do their job to give you a feeling to be in a plane. (Janes USAF did this over 10 years ago and the pits do their job until today).

 

But DCS just gives you a feeling about nothing beacuse you can fly nearly nothing (fighterplane)! Would be so much better to release planes with a "standard cockpit" to give people something to play with and deliver the sophisticated versions and a better avionics simulation step by step with continuous patches. And not years without any worthy release!!! And then deliver *maybe* a perfect product someday, but all people lost their interest and were gone.

 

In X-Plane there are several planes which are still missing an high-fidelity-cockpit, but you can fly them at least with standard gauges and a low-detail-dashboard. And casual gamers don't give a thing about an 1000% correct flight model, it's okay for them when they just feel that the F-117 is much more sedate that a F-22... And the casual gamers bring the money, not the too little sim-enthusiasts...

Edited December 3, 2013 by tarracta

[NineLine]

I stopped reading after this sentence.

 

[NineLine]

Then it's your problem!

 

Other games are coming with dozens of dashboards, cockpits and panels and it didn't take years of development just for *this*... Often these are not made with every detail, but they do their job to give you a feeling to be in a plane. (Janes USAF did this over 10 years ago and the pits do their job until today).

 

But DCS just gives you a feeling about nothing! Would be very better to release planes with a "standard cockpit" to give people something to play with and deliver the sophisticated versions step by step with patches. And not years without any worthy release!!! And then deliver, when all people lost their interest and were gone.

 

In X-Plane there are several planes which are still missing an high-fidelity-cockpit, but you can fly them at least with standard gauges and a low-detail-dashboard.

 

So you want ED to lower its standards in order to have more "content" That is your solution?

[Echo38]

There have been far too many half-way sim-games with lots of "airplanes" already. It's been happening for over thirty years. Lots of birds but none of them simulated well. Do we really want the only high-fidelity sim developer to become another one of these mediocre things? I don't.

[GGTharos]

Ok, then get cracking and make some, then you will gain some understanding :)

 

I have nearly no understanding why it takes lightyears to design a cockpit and a body and modify some avionics data so every plane gets its own characteristics.

[Bushmanni]

Other games are coming with dozens of dashboards, cockpits and panels and it didn't take years of development just for *this*... Often these are not made with every detail, but they do their job to give you a feeling to be in a plane. (Janes USAF did this over 10 years ago and the pits do their job until today).

 

But DCS just gives you a feeling about nothing! Would be so much better to release planes with a "standard cockpit" to give people something to play with and deliver the sophisticated versions and a better avionics simulation step by step with continuous patches. And not years without any worthy release!!! And then deliver, when all people lost their interest and were gone.

 

In X-Plane there are several planes which are still missing an high-fidelity-cockpit, but you can fly them at least with standard gauges and a low-detail-dashboard.

 

We have already seen these other games multiple times over the years, there's no need to redo them. ED is doing something new and pushing the genre forward which is time consuming and doesn't happen without problems but that's the way it's with every bit of new technology. We are having some delay with new planes and maps as the core technology that will allow a faster pace of releases is being developed currently. This means also more bugs with core functionality. ED is working to deliver exactly what we want but it will take some time and bug smashing.

[GGTharos]

But DCS just gives you a feeling about nothing beacuse you can fly nearly nothing (fighterplane)! Would be so much better to release planes with a "standard cockpit" to give people something to play with and deliver the sophisticated versions and a better avionics simulation step by step with continuous patches. And not years without any worthy release!!! And then deliver *maybe* a perfect product someday, but all people lost their interest and were gone.

 

ED would almost anything for sims ...

 

In X-Plane there are several planes which are still missing an high-fidelity-cockpit, but you can fly them at least with standard gauges and a low-detail-dashboard. And casual gamers don't give a thing about an 1000% correct flight model, it's okay for them when they just feel that the F-117 is much more sedate that a F-22... And the casual gamers bring the money, not the too little sim-enthusiasts...

But they won't do that. Oh no, they won't do that (AFAIK) :)

 

There will not be anything less than what there is in FC. New modules may start out at an FC-ish level and progress from there depending on things.

[Rhinox]

So you want ED to lower its standards in order to have more "content" That is your solution?

 

Q1: What "standards" you have in mind?

Q2: You really think they can be lowered?

[NineLine]

Q1: What "standards" you have in mind?

Q2: You really think they can be lowered?

 

 

If you disapprove of DCS:W so much and dont think it has high standards, or any at all, tell me, why are you here then?

[ENO]

We're all frustrated right now... And many have their own reasons. For some the sim is a lifestyle, for others a hobby. You can generally tell from feedback in the forums to which category a person subscribes.

 

I can't even look at the mission editor anymore without wincing at the thought of the hours it'll take to make anything work through subsequent patches. I've got a quiver of a half dozen missions I can't use anymore because of hopeless log jams of vehicles on bridges. I can't create dynamic content because nothing transfers between server and client when it happens. I can't have a battle involving any more than about 20 AI because it disembowels performance.

 

Flight wise- no complaints. I go into the cockpit and things are different... still some frustrating bugs resulting in server and client side crashes but to be fair they are becoming fewer and farther between. I'm finding most are coming from the absence of a handshake between ED and the community built tools developed to make the mission editor more accessible to a broader range of people. There doesn't seem to be a "by the way, we're changing this and this to accomplish this, so your tool is going to need to change in this way."

 

Some of the people who are most dedicated and passionate about this sim- who have by their own creation managed to engage an exponentially larger group than the stock platform caters to- are tired and it shows each time a patch comes out and breaks their program. They then need to go back, strip everything down and figure out what's changed from the errors being reported.

 

ED knows what impact this has more than anyone- when the only feedback you're receiving are people moaning about what isn't working anymore instead of all the things that are working... This is what these independent contributors are going through- and it's no wonder their contributions are diminishing.

 

More cooperation with keystone community ME development initiatives- ie: SLMOD / MIST would help to add stability as well as improve problem solving across a broader base- supporting the widespread development of advanced mission editor concepts... helping the mission builder as well as the clients they're trying to entertain.

[SkateZilla]

Then it's your problem!

 

Other games are coming with dozens of dashboards, cockpits and panels and it didn't take years of development just for *this*... Often these are not made with every detail, but they do their job to give you a feeling to be in a plane. (Janes USAF did this over 10 years ago and the pits do their job until today).

 

But DCS just gives you a feeling about nothing beacuse you can fly nearly nothing (fighterplane)! Would be so much better to release planes with a "standard cockpit" to give people something to play with and deliver the sophisticated versions and a better avionics simulation step by step with continuous patches. And not years without any worthy release!!! And then deliver *maybe* a perfect product someday, but all people lost their interest and were gone.

 

In X-Plane there are several planes which are still missing an high-fidelity-cockpit, but you can fly them at least with standard gauges and a low-detail-dashboard. And casual gamers don't give a thing about an 1000% correct flight model, it's okay for them when they just feel that the F-117 is much more sedate that a F-22... And the casual gamers bring the money, not the too little sim-enthusiasts...

 

Jane's USAF was far from a High Fidelity Sim.

 

Comparing Apples to Oranges. Or Sony Discman to iPAD 3.

 

as for Planes flying with Generic Pits, Suggest you Search the Forums, there's a Mod that does just that.

[GGTharos]

Q1: What "standards" you have in mind?

 

Their choice of aircraft based on available information.

 

Q2: You really think they can be lowered?

 

Yes.

[Rhinox]

If you disapprove of DCS:W so much and dont think it has high standards, or any at all, tell me, why are you here then?

Because I did not receive value I payed for. THAT'S WHY!

 

And you, as forum-moderator, should watch your language. I do not like that tone. That's sure *not* the way to handle paying customers...

[NineLine]

Because I did not receive value I payed for. THAT'S WHY!

 

And you, as forum-moderator, should watch your language. I do not like that tone. That's sure *not* the way to handle paying customers...

 

What value are you missing? Explain to me what they didnt provide to you, because I received everything I paid for, and more...

 

ALso what language should I be watching, I didnt use anything offensive, nothing more offensive than you used...

[tarracta]

Jane's USAF was far from a High Fidelity Sim.

 

Comparing Apples to Oranges. Or Sony Discman to iPAD 3.

 

as for Planes flying with Generic Pits, Suggest you Search the Forums, there's a Mod that does just that.

 

Janes USAF is over 10 years old (1999?) so it's comparing apple with oranges. But in 10 years things could advance ... but even comparing the hardware facts of the '90s and today USAF performed better - I never had multiplayer issues and used a 64kbit line... and i could choose between bombers, AA-fighters and multirole fighters...

 

And yes, a lower standard would be okay, not everyone expects (and uses!) a 100%-simulation. Easy-to-use planes with non-clickable-cockpits in FC3, and in the background developing sophisticated DCS-level aircrafts.

 

But an F/A-18 release surely not in 2014 is inacceptable. The F-15C is getting boring...even an FC3: F-15E would be nice and I don't understand why this would be so much work to do... so many things are already in the game (waepons, cockpit areas, airframes...).

[NineLine]

Janes USAF is over 10 years old (1999?) so it's comparing apple with oranges. But in 10 years things could advance ... but even comparing the hardware facts of the '90s and today USAF performed better - I never had multiplayer issues and used a 64kbit line... and i could choose between bombers, AA-fighters and multirole fighters...

 

And yes, a lower standard would be okay, not everyone expects (and uses!) a 100%-simulation. Easy-to-use planes with non-clickable-cockpits in FC3, and in the background developing sophisticated DCS-level aircrafts.

 

But an F/A-18 release surely not in 2014 is inacceptable. The F-15C is getting boring...even an FC3: F-15E would be nice and I don't understand why this would be so much work to do... so many things are already in the game (waepons, cockpit areas, airframes...).

 

Because the AI to do these things is very simplified compared to making it so a user can control these aircraft... nobody would love a Strike Eagle more than me... but I dont want a BF4 version... and without alot of work, that is what you will get, even a FC3 version would have alot going on under the hood....

 

And the F-15C will get more interesting soon... anyways you are contradicting yourself, you say you want lower-fidelity planes, but the ones you have now bore you....

Edited December 3, 2013 by NineLine

[SkateZilla]

Janes USAF is over 10 years old (1999?) so it's comparing apple with oranges. But in 10 years things could advance ... but even comparing the hardware facts of the '90s and today USAF performed better - I never had multiplayer issues and used a 64kbit line... and i could choose between bombers, AA-fighters and multirole fighters...

 

And yes, a lower standard would be okay, not everyone expects (and uses!) a 100%-simulation. Easy-to-use planes with non-clickable-cockpits in FC3, and in the background developing sophisticated DCS-level aircrafts.

 

But an F/A-18 release surely not in 2014 is inacceptable. The F-15C is getting boring...even an FC3: F-15E would be nice and I don't understand why this would be so much work to do... so many things are already in the game (waepons, cockpit areas, airframes...).

 

You obviously dont (care) to see how much detail, work and coding went into the A-10C's/DCS Series Module's systems.

 

The Systems take research and development time,

It's not just a quick copy/paste job, and edit a few lines, Move on to the next Airframe, Copy/Paste, Edit.

 

If your opinion is based on the fact that you want to fly any and every airframe with a generic representation of cockpits and systems,

then how did you end up with DCS?,

Even FC3 Offers Multiple Airframes w/ Different Roles and a Fairly Accurate Visual Representation of the Cockpits and their Systems,

Even if they are Simp'd compared to the DCS Series Modules.

 

if you're bored with A2A, Move to a Different Airframe ( ie A-10A)

 

it’s like Buying a $500 Laptop to use as a Portable CD Player.

 

Also, F-15E Cockpit looks nothing Like the F-15Cs.

Edited December 3, 2013 by SkateZilla

[tarracta]

You obviously dont (care) to see how much detail, work and coding went into the A-10C's/DCS Series Module's systems.

 

The Systems take research and development time,

It's not just a quick copy/paste job, and edit a few lines, Move on to the next Airframe, Copy/Paste, Edit.

 

If your opinion is based on the fact that you only want to fly airframes with a generic representation of cockpits and systems,

then how did you end up with DCS?,

[/Quote]

 

I end up with DCS because I like a 100%-simulation. But I understand that this is very, very, very hard work to do - beginning with collecting all the necessary informations.

 

But in the meantime there could be an FC3 without too accurate systems (don't need to have top-realistic aviation systems, it's good when it's done with "best guessing") to have fun with flying planes which are still much more modelled than in BF4.

 

Even FC3 Offers Multiple Airframes w/ Different Roles and a Fairly Accurate Visual Representation of the Cockpits and their Systems,

Even if they are Simp'd compared to the DCS Series Modules.

Yes I am very happy about FC3, it's for the moment a good replacement for missing DCS planes. Even I don't need a 3D-Cockpit for the first release. Bring me an F-16, F-22, F-117 with a semi-realistic simulation of the plane and everything would be fine (and better than in any other games available atm). An western bomber/multirole fighters is extremely missing for interesting multiplayer sessions.

 

if you're bored with A2A, Move to a Different Airframe ( ie A-10A)

Sure, but a multirole fastmover would be better ;)

 

 

Also, F-15E Cockpit looks nothing Like the F-15Cs.

 

Even that... a 2D-Cockpit like the Mig-29 does it right the first time, main thing you have already a plane to fly :-) A 6DOF Pit could be an element for a patch in the future.

[SkateZilla]

As I Said, if that's what you want, for the time being, there's a mod that allows you to do that.

 

http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=107012

[Steel Jaw]

Anyone else find it rather ironic that this thread was moved to chit-chat and yet the DCSW - awesome thread resides comfortably at the top of the 'DCS World' subforum?

 

Their house, their rules.

[SkateZilla]

Cuz This one is about the Future of DCS,

 

And it contains Posts about/regarding unreleased products from ED and Partners, opinions about those products and conversation comparing them to other products, and nothing about or pertaining to currently released DCSW Builds and their Features.

[kaffehtrinkhen]

Hi, its my first post.

I am not really talkative online, because I have dyslexia.

And the spell check makes sometime silly jokes with me.

Maybe I have a good solution. If you like the Idea I will post it under the wishlist.

 

DCS UFO

Some arcade playable UFO that are easy to writhe. So the community become bigger, and ED can make a lot many (for us hardcore player). :music_whistling:

People have a easy way to learn flying a simulation.

I'm sure after playing arcade some people wont to learn flying more realistic simulated airplane.

The community should model the UFOs in a contest. So the people who like to model have something to do and other player are kept pusy by voting for.

Some action on server, think about hunting soom noobs in UFOs with good simulated F-15 or Su-27 sounds for my like fun! (not every day but still...)

Something like the movie Independien Day

Sure, some maybe don't like the idea because the prefer to have everything 100% realistic.

But it should not be a problem to switch of a UFO modul on a server.

Thanks

[Linx]

As I Said, if that's what you want, for the time being, there's a mod that allows you to do that.

 

http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=107012

 

It only changes the 3d for the plane, doesn't really do anything other than that.

 

 

Why hasn't there been at least a FC level multirole since 2003?

Or any other new FC plane that isn't a derivative of the ones present in original Lock on?

 

The basic code seems to be there. You have radars and capability for BVR combat on FC fighters and ability to shoot ARM and precision guided munitions on FC attack planes.

Why haven't/can't those things be wrapped up in a FC level multirole jet?

 

If A-10C level planes really require that much time and money, why not make some new FC level planes as a way to acquire funds for more serious projects?

 

Releasing FC3 with the same plane selection from 10 years ago is extremely disappointing. And now stand-alone modules of those same planes? I mean, great for those who only want a specific FC3 plane. But c'mon, at least bring something new to the table for the rest of us.

 

And this is my biggest problem with DCS/FC series, there hasn't been anything new at all. Sure there have been 3d and FM improvements for FC planes, but that's not new content. And IMHO, ED will keep releasing same planes over and over again, because hardcore fans will buy anything from them to "support" the series and hopefully get a DCS plane one day for their effort and loyalty.

But why would ED make new DCS level planes if people will buy the same ones 5 times, albeit in a new fancy wrapping?

 

 

But anyways.

DCS World is a great product which is still in it's infancy and will take few more years to mature.

There are some very interesting 3rd party modules coming out soon which will give new life to this sim and will help us with the waiting.

 

 

 

Also, DCS: F-18C is a fairy tale. :megalol:

[GGTharos]

Probably because it's old code and it's better to deal with new code instead. I'm pretty sure ED is working to get rid of old avionics code.

 

Why haven't/can't those things be wrapped up in a FC level multirole jet?