This video said everything !

I wouldn't mind paying a yearly subscription. If it would mean they could increase staff size and actually get huge improvement on;

- engine DCS3.0 from scratch

Look at what they are doing with the new civil sim at the moment it looks stunning.

- dynamic campaign sp and mp

- sound engine from scratch

- weather engine with realistic clouds and layers

- ATC from scratch

I can go on and on but in the end I would choose to start from scratch to make the product so many of us have waited for.

Somehow it seems DCS is becoming a dinosaur that's being pushed into an age with patches and bandage left and right. Something just doesn't feel right anymore and out of balance. On one hand you have these really sophisticated modules that are absolute top notch. While on the other hand the world (sim) they operate in is outdated. Schizophrenic is the best I can describe it as it feels right now.

Outdated? The GFX engine is stunning, flying over the PG is incredible, and nevada or even caucasus do not stay far behind.

It is the other things that need attention:

AI, DC, Comms... the things that make it a better game.

Enviado desde mi SM-G950F mediante Tapatalk

Been debating commenting on this, given I said a lot of my piece directly to Nick on Reddit and well there is always that looming spectre of voicing anything here, As many others have said X-Check, Jabbres, Magz, and even a big chunk of users on hoggit etc who voice concern aren't doing so because we 'hate' DCS, lets face it the fighting and the arguing that can and some times does happen comes because every one of us users have a passion for this simulation/game to the point that DCS is a GAME but we attack people for calling it that, because we point out the S in it.. Simulation. We wouldn't get annoyed and frustrated by having to deal with game breaking bugs every second patch release or having bugs that have been in the sim for years, or features that were in other games 10+ years ago missing.. IF we didn't feel passionate about the game.

We constantly see though what I'd term almost an abusive relationship (actually I did term it such on Hoggit) were if this was very much a real relationship then a judge would have thrown a restraining order on both parties by now! We as users allow ourselves to be abused and to take it and be quite except in the very few places we have had (hoggit mainly) because.. we have no other choice, there is no other MODERN combat simulator on the market anymore, and yet at the same time we are also almost just as abusive at times back at Eagle forgetting that there are people who are pouring their lives into giving us our fix. That being said there have been a number of times (countless) were in the past knee jerk reactions to comments result in 'You've been Warned' or 'OFF TOPIC' etc warnings from those in power even when the comments have been completely on topic, just not in the way that ED 'likes', or where you start to compare things and find your thread deleted with Rule 1.15. As I said to Nick on Reddit that shouldn't be happening at all either DCSWorld can stand on it's own MERIT and it's own Feature list and be open to CONSTRUCTIVE critique about what other games have done and what the competition even if it's 20 years old has, or it can't but discussion of that shouldn't be shut down unless it becomes abusive full stop. Now Nine and the others have said this will 'change' and be less 'enforced' but rule 1.15 still exists and as I said to them last night before I went to bed, because Rule 1.15 exists what I'm about to post next technically breaks the rules, because I'm about to do some comparisions, instead Rule 1.15 should be made less restrictive and more 'non constructive, or abusive discussion of other simulations/competitors products will not be tolerated'. That leaves things open so long as people can be adults.

X-Check is right when he says that DCSWorld has failed to truly 'change' and grow and while yes we can point out that Falcon 4.0 was a mess on release etc we also see time and time again people pointing to it as the great example of the biggest feature request by most now for YEARS, that being the Dynamic Campaign. But what people also forget is that FALCON/BMS was not the only game around 10 - 20 years ago that gave us Dynamic Campaigns, Battle of Britian 1 and 2 both gave us a DYNAMIC air campaign of the WW2 skies over the Southern UK and England, B17 gave us a dynamic Bomber campaign over the skies of Europe and while the Mighty 8th was never truly completed it too was a Dynamic campaign and yet despite this we see little in the way of progress on it, beyond the vague post every now and again about well we have a programmer working on it.

Weather is another area people have commented on and X-Check does as well, we've been promised a weather update now forever and yet none of us are allowed to sit here on the forums and with out breaking rules go, ok why hasn't some one broken DCS's weather API out into it's own subset of code base, on it's own thread and with its own hooks to be scripted and adjusted simular to the way that Microsoft did with MSFSX or that Xplane has done? This would allow for dynamic updatable weather and even if done correctly the ability like the other simulations to allow for texture updates etc.

I could continue and constructively break down and compare DCS against the 'other' options on the market but I'm not going to because It's flogging a dead horse, DCS does some things amazingly, it's systems modelling especially on the likes of the hog, the 14 etc are amazing and show the level of detail that Eagle Dynamics and 3rd parties can reach, the Graphics engine is visually stunning, but the threading locks that tie it's rates to the CPU cycles mean that for some things we never see a true performance increase to match our horse power, watch most 20 series Nvidia cards in NonVR, it's sad to see 50 - 60% utilization with out Vsync on etc and at times be dropping to 30 - 40 fps.. when you know if it was using all 100% you'd be at 80 - 100fps, just like it's sad to watch a 8700K hammering one core hard and only lightly touching the others, but again there not easy fixes... just discussing them seems to become a 'taboo' subject, were you might be banned because rather then be adults, people quickly devolve into slinging mud at each other, accusing them of not knowing what they are talking about etc... Despite the fact that amongst this community you have a very very wide user base, some of us have worked THIS industry itself, coding for other simulators as part of other companies, some of us have worked the Games industry, some have programming experiance, some have VFX experience but the 'well you don't know what it's like' card gets pulled and people get shouted down.

So while yes X-Check might use some harsh words like 'Pathetic' stop and ask yourself this? If it was anything else and you could detatch yourself from the emotional response your having would you actually be happy with how things have been? If you moved the relationship on both sides to a personal one would you actually allow it to continue? Because I think you'd find that you'd be ashamed of how things are on both sides of the fence, Eagle Dynamics is at least finally listening, it's up to BOTH of the parties, them and US to make a difference now and for that I have to give them some credit for at least being willing to say 'Ok we understand we have a problem, we will try and change'.

On the other big glaring topic that I've ignored in this small essay of a post, the $$ side, it's a hard one that almost every Developer in this small Industry of 'Flight Simulation/Gaming' has to face, on one hand the user base is fairly small and has limited funds, on the other hand we the user base demand more and more complex and technical things, and the computer changes mean that things get more and more complex, requiring more and more man-hours of coding. This in turn means higher development costs.. and yet we as a community always bulk at being the ones who have to well soak up that cost, it's a trend seen across gaming actually were costs for Developers have risen while the community bulks at a movement of the end unit prices, something has to give eventually.

Early Access might be the stream ED is using at the moment, but how long can it last? How long can you keep pushing half finished products out before it gets to the point that you've built up that much of a back log that if you don't keep doing it your never going to finish? and yet because your doing it.. your never going to finish. That's part of what generated the 'backlash' towards the Viper, people see it taking away from the Hornet and fear that. So how can ED change it?

Good question and no doubt one that Nick and the rest are all asking themselves, I mean Nick's openly said on Reddit he's other businesses some times help 'pay' for both ED and the fighter collection, it makes me wonder though why can't Eagle do something like a Crowd funding campaign for KEY engine features, Set a base price and give the option for people who BACK that campaign to be ALPHA testers of the product or to get there names in the credits or the option to do some voice work and have that immortalised, It would eliminate the EA constant hand in fist issues and also allow a dedicated milestone/goals list and funding stream for CORE features to be done, the community wants a dynamic campaign as a priority fine.. LET US have the option to FUND it, The community wants some one other then Wags for JTACS and voices? fine let us FUND IT.

But at the same time if we DO Fund it, then Eagle Dynamics needs to be transperant and give us PROPER updates and timelines.

Anyway I've written enough of an essay no doubt some one will object a thousand times over to half of what i've written.

just my $2.00

-Rob.

Anyway I've written enough of an essay no doubt some one will object a thousand times over to half of what i've written.

Not me. That was a great post from my perspective.

I'd be more than happy to make one-off contributions for key features such as ATC, weather, or a Dynamic Campaign. At least then (if the contribution threshold was met) I'd know that there was a solid commitment towards tangible progress in that direction.

I actively WANT to pay to help DCS become the sim I believe it can be, but I don't want to do it via the endless purchasing of never-to-finished aircraft modules. Flying half-finished modules in an empty and bug-riddled environment isn't what gets me excited and passionate about DCS.

Good question and no doubt one that Nick and the rest are all asking themselves, I mean Nick's openly said on Reddit he's other businesses some times help 'pay' for both ED and the fighter collection, it makes me wonder though why can't Eagle do something like a Crowd funding campaign for KEY engine features, Set a base price and give the option for people who BACK that campaign to be ALPHA testers of the product or to get there names in the credits or the option to do some voice work and have that immortalised, It would eliminate the EA constant hand in fist issues and also allow a dedicated milestone/goals list and funding stream for CORE features to be done, the community wants a dynamic campaign as a priority fine.. LET US have the option to FUND it, The community wants some one other then Wags for JTACS and voices? fine let us FUND IT.

Having spent some time on community funded projects, the lack of harmony between developers and some of the community who felt sold out and the disparity amongst the community themselves was rife. The drama was intense, far more than anything I have seen here, including many bans and people taking to other forums to state how they had been victimised for just telling the truth. It is telling that the devs have decided not to do this again.

I wouldn't mind paying a yearly subscription. If it would mean they could increase staff size and actually get huge improvement on;

 

- engine DCS3.0 from scratch

Look at what they are doing with the new civil sim at the moment it looks stunning.

- dynamic campaign sp and mp

- sound engine from scratch

- weather engine with realistic clouds and layers

- ATC from scratch

 

I can go on and on but in the end I would choose to start from scratch to make the product so many of us have waited for.

 

Somehow it seems DCS is becoming a dinosaur that's being pushed into an age with patches and bandage left and right. Something just doesn't feel right anymore and out of balance. On one hand you have these really sophisticated modules that are absolute top notch. While on the other hand the world (sim) they operate in is outdated. Schizophrenic is the best I can describe it as it feels right now.

+1 for all except the annual pass, just 100 bucks for DCS 3.0 and ED will recover the investment.

And for those who are wondering what they will do with dcs 2.5, it's simple, they'll leave 10% staff to fix small bugs :)

I have probably 80 % of all modules including WW2 modules.

This is a great simulation, awe inspiring aircraft and a fantastic world to fly in.

Ok a lot haven’t been finished and there are bugs and some other problems.

The big “but” for me though is that there is no war for all these great planes just a lovely empty world. I have bought many modules and won’t buy more until I have a war in which to fly them.

“Storm of War” use to have a server running a 24/7 war for Cliffs of Dover and we need something similar for DCS. A single player or a squad could make a contribution to the war effort at any time no matter your time zone. Whether it would be feasible for DCS to run such a server I wouldn’t know but that server attracted a lot of players.

Just my thoughts on what is missing from this great simulation of war planes and that’s all it is at this time a simulation of war planes and a world to fly in.

cheers

Ibis

Dcs world its the best flightsim ever for me !! clearly one wishes such things. Every program has its errors. And ED is not such a big company. They work with a lot of heart, and what they have achieved to date is just awesome! With the modules and the maps! I am curious what will happen in the future. thx to all module manufacturer and to the Team Eagle Dynamics greets

Dcs world its the best flightsim ever for me !!

I absolutely agree; 100%. For me DCS is the best Flightsim out there. But that`s it. Flightsim, not Fightsim.

The F2P Model of DCS has brought me back to the World Flight Simulation, which I had I left for some years, when I had to divert most of my daily time to Life.

The Quality of graphics and especially the quality of the FM of some of the most beloved planes of my youth (Viggen, Mirage, F14 and now the Viper) was just beyond my expectations.

Since getting in touch with DCS, I use most of my free time, to read on the forums, watch videos about DCS or just fly in the sim.

DCS ist more or less the only game I use on my PC, expect for that other russian built WW2-Simulator out there.

But yet, I still would love to finally see the implementation of a Dynamic Campaign. A rework of the Weather System, with multiple cloud layers and the option, to choose from different types of clouds, plus maybe the chance to just load Real Weather Data into the sim; like so many other civil flight simulators let you do. I would like to finally see a rework of the ATC in DCS, as it is absolutely outdated, unrealistic and useless; since good, believeable ATC was possible in a famous civil sim, decades ago, this shouldn`t be much a of a problem for Eagle Dynamics.

A good and immersive core game, is the basis on which all the modules and maps can build on and will DCS help to leap forward. It`s what is needed, to let those great Modules fully shine.

Give us an immersive and great World to game or sim in. Let us be part of the Fighting and not just flying those great airplanes and jets in a great looking environment.

I am sure, that most people are currently arguing with emotions and a lot of passion, because they love what ED has created so far and they want it to exist in the future. At least that`s the way I feel about it.

I agree with most of the positive and negative comments mentioned in the video and this fourm so I will not repeat them. I just hope ED will take them in a constructive way and eagerly start making the necessary improvements. They know the feelings and thoughts of their customers, now let's see where things go from here...

There is also another thing , not mentioned by anyone but worth a thought at least.

I wish DCS could be more open on modding.

While I perfectly understand that is impossible to have everything from ED there are a lot of guys out there with a lot of passion that could fill the void.

Just think about SRS , Combat Flite , LotATC , MB339 mod , A4 mod, etc. all softwares and mods made by the community to enhance the DCS experience without official support.

For example I wish there could be :

- public tools for creating maps

- more powerful scripts within the game ( to create a new ATC , weather system , etc )

- more documentation on building FMs

In this scenario ED could concentrate more in building and selling the "tech" before the "content" , making DCS the perfect environment for every flightsimmer.

I can name many titles that works in this way ( FPS , flightsim , drivesim , etc ) and , obviously, they dont have the F2P part.

There is also another thing , not mentioned by anyone but worth a thought at least.

 

I wish DCS could be more open on modding.

 

While I perfectly understand that is impossible to have everything from ED there are a lot of guys out there with a lot of passion that could fill the void.

 

Just think about SRS , Combat Flite , LotATC , MB339 mod , A4 mod, etc. all softwares and mods made by the community to enhance the DCS experience without official support.

 

For example I wish there could be :

- public tools for creating maps

- more powerful scripts within the game ( to create a new ATC , weather system , etc )

- more documentation on building FMs

 

In this scenario ED could concentrate more in building and selling the "tech" before the "content" , making DCS the perfect environment for every flightsimmer.

 

I can name many titles that works in this way ( FPS , flightsim , drivesim , etc ) and , obviously, they dont have the F2P part.

SDK tools for creating maps only has available to 3rd parties.

SDK tools for creating maps only has available to 3rd parties.

That's why I said I wish they can be public! :music_whistling:

The video makes valid points, but I can't agree with everything in it. The idea that, for example, dynamic campaign was left out of LOMAC because of a lack of competition is not supported in the video. It seems just as likely to me that ED didn't include it because they did not have the resources to add such a thing at the time.

Despite being the only major combat sim developer around, they went well beyond LOMAC in a few years with DCS products, culminating in DCS World where all these high fidelity aircraft can interact. ED has absolutely not stood around doing nothing for all this time.

However, what ED does do can be confusing and seemingly inconsistent in the eyes of an outside viewer. To some degree it's understandable because a company isn't going divulge its day by day operations openly to everyone. But the current level of obscurity is contributing to some discontent in the playerbase. I don't think players as a whole are off the hook though as many seem to think fully understand ED's situation, which I doubt.

In any case, I'll just repeat a wish that I've mentioned before regarding DCS's module/communication strategy, which is that I'd like to see core features of the sim tied more explicitly to modules. I know that ED is already improving the core sim through module sales, but the link isn't always clear. Perhaps if it was, and core improvements from module development was more clear, it would alleviate some of the concerns from those who feel like modules are released at the expense of everything else. It could also help them feel like buying EA is worth it which might in turn help ED.

An example of the explicit link would be FC3 and AFM missiles, as I believe that ED stated that one of the goals in pushing out FC3 was to fund missile improvements (correct me if I'm wrong). Perhaps future modules could all coincide with attention given to a relevant core feature, like a fighter module that will include updated AWACS functionality that is usable by all aircraft. Along with the module development videos and updates, we'd receive updates on the improved AWACS feature as well. Just a kind of communication and development strategy I'd like to see if possible.

I don't understand the argument for wanting a new engine in DCS 3.0. I think the current engine, graphics-wise, is doing a *very* good job. And it runs very smoothly too (on my pc anyway).

What I DO agree with the video in the OP on is that DCS needs to implement some core features to make it more appealing. Specifically:

1. Weather: Weather that looks as good as the rest of the sim. The current clouds and weather model is always the first thing that breaks the photorealism of a screenshot. And not only to be pretty, but to be tactical. Weather is extremely important in air warfare, which also makes it vital that it is synchronized in multiplayer. You can't hide in a cloud if you are the only one who sees the cloud. And for pre-radar era planes (as in ww2), it is just as crucial.

2. Dynamic campaign: This was repeated many times in the video, and I agree. It can really give a lot of immersion and the feeling of being part of something big, without being the center of it. As a part of this comes the demand for better AI, ATC and communication. For the combat aspect, there really is no better way. Scripted campaigns have never appealed to me, and I know that a lot feel the same.

3. Light and dark: External lights, landing lights, city lights, strobes, anti-coll lights... Nothing is balanced. The MiG-21 shines like the sun even in daylight, while the F-14 has external lights that can only be seen from a very short distance. I never fly at night, and I think most of us don't. City lights in Vegas don't look like Vegas, it's just a faded grey area.

4. Terrain: The current map areas are well made, but we need more areas. And especially, we need areas that are not desert. I mean, sure, the Syria map looks nice, but we need more variety. I've personally suggested North Scandinavia/Kola peninsula area... and not only because I live here, but because it's the border between 4 nations (Russia, Finland, Sweden and Norway) and an important blue water area (Barents sea). It's a classical flashpoint for cold war gone hot scenarios as well as more modern takes. You got fjords and valleys, deep frost and darkness in winter, permanent daylight in summer, rough weather, rough seas. The russian Northern Fleet and the northern flank of NATO... (sorry, I got carried away on this point)

I think the video by X-check makes some good points, but is way too dramatic. It portrays DCS in such a melancholic and tragic way, that I cannot fully agree with it.

DCS is the best flight simulator I've ever flown. It is the best multiplayer experience I've ever had too. It just needs that little extra improvement.

Sorry for the long post, but I hope I made some sense.

Interesting video describing the state of the art regarding DCS World

it's already 10 pages long friend

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=252408

Really good points

Agreed on everything - especially the desire for a Kola Peninsula / Scandinavia map. :thumbup:

Also, I believe most attractive aircrafts are almost all out now, with F-15E on the horizon.

So the return of investment of future module might not be as good, the sustainability of current business model, therefore and in my opinion, is at risk.

As Wags said in the podcast interview, they are looking for the whole world as terrain as ultimate goal. And they are as well looking for possibility have more civilian aircrafts to DCS, not just acrobatics aircrafts.

And that is where market can be for many.

1) provide high quality airports and assets.

2) build high quality civilian aircrafts like passenger Jets etc.

Other sources are, still majorly ignored by everyone, ground assets. Like more modern armors, trucks, cars etc. But a lot of that is depending from ED future RTS game features for the Combined Arms, dynamic mission/campaign etc generator.

The DCS is currently >90% of the air, and from that almost completely about inside the cockpit. There ain't challenge against ground forces as they are stupid, simple and just incapable for tenth of the threat they pose to aircrafts. So DCS pilots can feel superior because lack of reality on the ground.

And that is where big money can be made. Like offer a major USMC ground forces pack for 19,90€. Them one for UK Marines or infantry.

If the ED supports in future, start to offer SAM simulators, like assets of specific SAM site as 19,90€ price tag to be able man and operate a BUK (SA-11) system, that would include all the vehicles and all stations.

There is huge market for civilian operations, as well for are defense operations.

One pilot can like to blow things up at ground, two might want to blow something down. And ten might just want to fly in peace....

So much can be done better in the future by delivering more content, with improvement to base features...

As Wags said in the podcast interview, they are looking for the whole world as terrain as ultimate goal. And they are as well looking for possibility have more civilian aircrafts to DCS, not just acrobatics aircrafts.

 

And that is where market can be for many.

 

1) provide high quality airports and assets.

2) build high quality civilian aircrafts like passenger Jets etc.

 

Other sources are, still majorly ignored by everyone, ground assets. Like more modern armors, trucks, cars etc. But a lot of that is depending from ED future RTS game features for the Combined Arms, dynamic mission/campaign etc generator.

 

The DCS is currently >90% of the air, and from that almost completely about inside the cockpit. There ain't challenge against ground forces as they are stupid, simple and just incapable for tenth of the threat they pose to aircrafts. So DCS pilots can feel superior because lack of reality on the ground.

 

And that is where big money can be made. Like offer a major USMC ground forces pack for 19,90€. Them one for UK Marines or infantry.

 

If the ED supports in future, start to offer SAM simulators, like assets of specific SAM site as 19,90€ price tag to be able man and operate a BUK (SA-11) system, that would include all the vehicles and all stations.

 

There is huge market for civilian operations, as well for are defense operations.

One pilot can like to blow things up at ground, two might want to blow something down. And ten might just want to fly in peace....

 

So much can be done better in the future by delivering more content, with improvement to base features...

If it's indeed the case they are decades late regarding the new should not be named sim back in the market. A DCS 3.0 looks like an obligation if they want to go that way. The current sim is buildt with so many old pieces bellow the new ones, i have hard time understanding how they could compete with a decent worldwide environment with decent FPS without almost starting from scratch a new one ...

If it's indeed the case they are decades late regarding the new should not be named sim back in the market. A DCS 3.0 looks like an obligation if they want to go that way. The current sim is buildt with so many old pieces bellow the new ones, i have hard time understanding how they could compete with a decent worldwide environment with decent FPS without almost starting from scratch a new one ...

There's a good argument that a small, independent developer such as ED shouldn't be trying to compete head-to-head, feature-for-feature with a multi-billion dollar mega-corporation's offering.

In my opinion, ED would be much better off understanding how DCS World can differentiate itself an make itself a meaningfully unique experience. That's where the combat experience and sense of being in a "real" war starts to make even more logical sense as a unique differentiating factor. Lean into delivering on the core fantasy of vicariously living out the experiences of a frontline military pilot.

DCS doesn’t lose if it doesn’t match up feature-for-feature with the competition. DCS loses if it doesn’t bring anything unique and ownable to the table.

If it's indeed the case they are decades late regarding the new should not be named sim back in the market. A DCS 3.0 looks like an obligation if they want to go that way. The current sim is buildt with so many old pieces bellow the new ones, i have hard time understanding how they could compete with a decent worldwide environment with decent FPS without almost starting from scratch a new one ...

Exactly.

There is also another thing , not mentioned by anyone but worth a thought at least.

 

I wish DCS could be more open on modding.

 

While I perfectly understand that is impossible to have everything from ED there are a lot of guys out there with a lot of passion that could fill the void.

 

Just think about SRS , Combat Flite , LotATC , MB339 mod , A4 mod, etc. all softwares and mods made by the community to enhance the DCS experience without official support.

 

For example I wish there could be :

- public tools for creating maps

- more powerful scripts within the game ( to create a new ATC , weather system , etc )

- more documentation on building FMs

 

In this scenario ED could concentrate more in building and selling the "tech" before the "content" , making DCS the perfect environment for every flightsimmer.

 

I can name many titles that works in this way ( FPS , flightsim , drivesim , etc ) and , obviously, they dont have the F2P part.

Modders need support:book:

I think in terms of differentiation its hard. They are the only hardcore combat air sim. And the "combat part" of is severely lacking in many areas. That's where the criticism comes from. "Modern" air warfare has heavily been about EW since the 60's as one glaring example. And yet half the released planes have some half functional or non functional noise jammer. And the excuses of "why not" aren't credible IMO. Its not top secret, yes some aspects are but they could do a credible job of an EW simulation. Many of the techniques are published in textbooks for gods sake. Make a guess at the details if not available (i.e. power, bandwidth, freq agility, etc) and I don't think too many people will complain, and balance it since its an evolving "game". Same thing for a halfway decent IADS, though there you have AI issues simulating doctrinal differences too. A modern or soviet era IADS system, or a Iraqi IADS circa 1991 or a Syrian one circa 1973 are rather different things. Not to mention western doctrines.

Anyhow. I also agree with the earlier poster about the long game and overall business model, Once you have the "iconic" planes in (and you are mostly there IMO), then what are you going to do bring in the bucks? And then how are you going to pay for the various module update and maintenance costs? I don't think millennials care that much about the F4 (I do but I'm old)... Just sayin...

The other thing I think is critical is some sort of standardized comms for online use. Half or more of the public servers no one uses comms, no one coordinates etc. Even if the server requires you to be on SRS or Discord etc, seldom do people actually talk and that's a major issue for the community to solve since having some built in option is great, but only if people use it.