Interview with Wags

Things sound great in the interview, and I hope it works out. I am wondering about the graphics end of things and how the Microsoft Flight sim map could be integrated into DCS which could save a ton of work and allow us to actually fly anywhere and have a theater of conflict anywhere.

I don't think it's really suited to low down high detail for choppers, tanks and CA in general for a dynamic campaign. CA will allow you to play as the ground force in that campaign if you wish potentially. That would not work also for Ai pathing etc. Even orbx products are not good enough low down, compared to what ED has now in the sim for ground battles. If you were just bombing from height this would be fine. CA and the dynamic campaign really make this more difficult to do on a large scale with the detail wanted.

I'm glad to hear they working on a proper online dynamic campaign especially one that focuses on logistics and not just killing stuff thats parked out in the open waiting to die. One of the main things I'm looking forward to is somehow incorporating (as part of the above) the ability to destroy buildings, factories, bridges, supplies, trains, vehicles, shipping etc. Thats what I want to be flying in support of.

I'm also interested in the next free map they're working on. I'm crossing my fingers it has jungle and I mean proper jungle like Asia or Africa or South America.

I think the Long lead time for edge speaks to why they're working on it's replacement, it would likely take just as long, so start now and it might still be 5 - 10 years away.

Time in DCS World seems to run slower then it does for me :)

Interesting comments about the new engine.

A question that springs to mind is whether that will be built in house, as a development of Edge, or a move to an off the shelf solution, eg unreal.

Yeah, this has me purplexed too. 2.5 took a lot of work and a lot of time to arrive. I'm concerned that they seem to be replacing that. Perhaps it turned out to be just a stop gap. Maybe, with the need to better support VR, go to multi-core, etc, ED worked out that even though they'd made that massive investment in 2.5 they had to replace the graphics engine again?

It doesn't mean people were actually sitting for 10 years +8 hours a day making the current graphics engine.

The move to newer APIs by the industry was long overdue infact, and it was indeed a major industry evolution/transition, wasn't a surprise for tech followers but it took many people by surprise IMO. However I don't think it's that bad for DCS, the newer DX11 engine is what's powering us since IMO early 2014 and it's just what happened, things evolve, and there's no rush on vulkan API as it's anew one I rather let it be polished well.

Plus there's PBR stuff which most people seem to be forgetting, the engine has evolved since 2014 and some of these features aren't that API centric, even if you have to write majority from scratch in theory for Vulkan, it's not completely scratch, code can be modified, recycled, adapted and it's a bit easier, it's probably better with the experience and skills rather than if they just went to vulkan without the other graphical bells&whistles in the meantime.

Part of multi-core CPU improvements is the new graphics engine based on new API, to get the weight off the CPU, because older APIs use the CPU as a babysitter, you are hungry to eat more but you can only eat as much as the busy babysitter is feeding you.

Since we are going to be able to walk from the brief room to our F-14, can we also get simulated beach volleyball now? Get a game in before the flight? Simulated locker room trash talking is a must as well! “No below the hard deck doesn’t count. Hard deck my ass, we nailed that son of a bitch! You guys really are cowboys. What your problem Kazansky!”

Interesting comments about the new engine.

A question that springs to mind is whether that will be built in house, as a development of Edge, or a move to an off the shelf solution, eg unreal.

I don`t think they will ever work with an external engine since Wags stated that only their inhouse-engine is suitable for what they want to archive. I would say engines like Unreal, Frostbyte and so on are not made for flight sims in general and with the scale DCS has.

Beta test of the DC in 2021 was the best news for me. Yes, it seems far away but at least we know that we will get one. It took a very long time to talk ED into making this.

The new ATC, DM and better AI was suppose to come with 2.5.... well I guess back then they didn't specify which 2.5 patch. May be we will still have it in 2.5

I was playing some Helicopter campaigns recently and oh man, Rottary wing AI is sooo broken, it can't fly, can't land it can't do what was programmed to do in the mission. Many missions broken because AI crash in trees, in hills, stuck hovering on top of landing points, hover climb behind every small hill make it very frustrating experience to try fly with it.. I wouldn't call it AI, it is more "A" than "I", you have to script every A"I" move, every turn and it will still fail somewhere.

Ground units AI isn't any better but I will not go into details.....

Honestly, how people which are playing in SP are enjoying the sim is beyond me. SP missions are so scripted and static, it is more scripted than a call of duty stage, and still A"I" can't follow the script at times. Hard to imagine how person who is not part of a Squadron or not playing MP can rate the combat part of the sim good.

Enough talks and Interviews ED, personally I hope to see some real improvements and major core game updates, not just hacks. And yes, I do support ED, I own pretty much all modules and most of the campaigns, I probably have 80% of all paid content, so feel I have the right to share my feelings :)

Honestly, how people which are playing in SP are enjoying the sim is beyond me. SP missions are so scripted and static, it is more scripted than a call of duty stage, and still A"I" can't follow the script at times. Hard to imagine how person who is not part of a Squadron or not playing MP can rate the combat part of the sim good.

Hi! While I'm part of a squadron, I only play MP on our weekly flyout, basically. I'm enjoying SP the rest of the time. Even in whirlybirds I'm having lots of fun.

Could the AI use improvement? Sure, show me a game where it doesn't. :)

And it will, as evidenced by the new gunnery adjustments and the upcoming new FM. Things will turn out well in the end, I have patience.

Still, at what point do you just lose confidence that ED can accomplish what they say? For me I’m past that point. They've said the same things over and over, the same old announcements recycled as new announcements every year. I’m just not drinking the koolaid anymore, I simply don’t believe them.

Yeah you want to know the truth? I’ve been here long enough, so no, I don’t think ED can do a lot of what they have planned. If they could they would’ve a long time ago. I just kind of accept it. There’s no point in griping and being snarky towards them. They know the state of the sim and they want to see it improved probably more than you do. If Wags says they’re working on it, then they’re working on it. If that work bares tangible fruit then all the better for us.

Yeah, this has me purplexed too. 2.5 took a lot of work and a lot of time to arrive. I'm concerned that they seem to be replacing that. Perhaps it turned out to be just a stop gap. Maybe, with the need to better support VR, go to multi-core, etc, ED worked out that even though they'd made that massive investment in 2.5 they had to replace the graphics engine again?

I guess it's just a living product that's being worked on over and over. So when they drop that new engine, they'll start on a new one again to incorporate new technology. That definately keeps DCS up to date even in 10 or 20 years.

So... I thought the major thing in 2.5 was the terrain engine? I seem to recall they moved to PBR as a somewhat attainable goal during that move because they planned to re-do a lot of textures anyway... but that the terrain engine was the primary goal of 2.5...

I just wish we had more maps whether it be internally developed or externally developed. Or maybe we can somehow incorporate DCS aircraft into FS2020 when it comes out :) that would be the dream wouldn't it?

Yeah you want to know the truth? I’ve been here long enough, so no, I don’t think ED can do a lot of what they have planned. If they could they would’ve a long time ago. I just kind of accept it. There’s no point in griping and being snarky towards them. They know the state of the sim and they want to see it improved probably more than you do. If Wags says they’re working on it, then they’re working on it. If that work bares tangible fruit then all the better for us.

Anymore this is how I look at it and I consider myself "newish" to DCS. IMO the best part of DCS has been the planes and they are the most visible aspect of the sim, but alot of the other "world" stuff is well sub-par as many people have noted ad nauseum. I'm glad its getting worked on, and once in a while you do see some progress, but its not as rapid as anyone would like it to be. One comment I do have is that they could do a better job on some of the engine improvements, because sometimes its just some line or two in a change log, and no details, so no one knows or notices so they could do a bit better highlight it (like the recent AI update, or the wake turbulence a while back).

"they could do a bit better highlight it (like the recent AI update, or the wake turbulence a while back)."

Yeah... One would think that would be the way to go...

Then they do that and 1/3 of the forum complains about their pet project not being worked on because some dumb feature like "Aim120" or the stupid "Ground Radar" or even that useless "IFF" crap is more important...

So then ED catch enough flak and they go quiet for a while...

Until people start complaining that they never hear about the new features or what's being worked on and they should be more open and transparent with us...

I've watched that cycle for years...

They have too...

@M1Combat - yep, you nailed it. Nicely - and accurately - summarized. :thumbup:

"they could do a bit better highlight it (like the recent AI update, or the wake turbulence a while back)."

 

Yeah... One would think that would be the way to go...

 

Then they do that and 1/3 of the forum complains about their pet project not being worked on because some dumb feature like "Aim120" or the stupid "Ground Radar" or even that useless "IFF" crap is more important...

 

 

So then ED catch enough flak and they go quiet for a while...

 

Until people start complaining that they never hear about the new features or what's being worked on and they should be more open and transparent with us...

 

 

I've watched that cycle for years...

 

They have too...

Fair enough, I've been here about a year now, and I'm starting to see patterns too. Still, just preface it with GuyX is working on thingX while GuyY is working on thing Y and guy and X and Y can't do each others job. I think thats where some of consternation on priorities comes from is people not understanding that. Plus the standard rule of software development is if you double the team, it will take 2x as long to get done :).

I have to admit I’m more than a little confused by the multiple mentions of another new graphics and terrain engine. The development of EDGE and DCS 2.X took nearly a decade and were touted as a long term and versatile solution. I know there are still a lot of performance and lighting issues in 2.5, and overall graphics improvements have slowed considerably, so is ED really pivoting away from what amounts to their still-new engine?

Vulkan Offers things DirectX 11 and Even DirectX 12 do not.

Engines Evolve, EDGE and the Terrain Engine cores were likely set well before VR came into play etc.

Good one M1combat :-)

My 2 cents, whole ED should sit together and do some brainstorming and make a decision to make feature freeze one stable SP and MP "bug free" build with working missions and working modules. A build that we can play whole year without problem. Once a year make one version that we can play without problem as a present for xmass.

And have an another branch like open beta that is improved consistently into another stable version released another xmass.

Well they mostly did that jctrnacty :)...

Then the people who stuck with the "release" version complained that they didn't get new features fast enough :)...

And then some people who decided to switch over to Open Beta decided that it should be much more stable :)...

Well they mostly did that jctrnacty :)...

 

Then the people who stuck with the "release" version complained that they didn't get new features fast enough :)...

 

And then some people who decided to switch over to Open Beta decided that it should be much more stable :)...

People... People are always the problem... :music_whistling:

People... People are always the problem... :music_whistling:

Yep - PEBCAK for the win. ;)

They could give hourly updates or go totally radio silent, I don’t care. I just want a combat sim where the combat is actually somewhat functional. A flight sim that actually models the environment in which airplanes exist. This strange acceptance that ED is just blowing smoke is not ok. These aren’t things companies could get away with in the past.

Whatever. I left DCS four or five years ago because it was a buggy semi functional mess built on promises. It’s still that, with a little better lighting. I guess I’ll check back in another five years.

Think it comes down to how MANY different people use the sim. Some want the full comms like civi sims have and that other combat one.

Sounds like a big job tho, it's down the list for me.

I guess out of anything, my pick would be the AI first, that includes ground, aircraft are being worked on now and we have the GPU's now to really push this forward. I've been doing more stuff online so ATC is not as important. (For me Anyway)

The Ai could also be a problem pushing this to far forward now? Waiting for vulkan api? To get more separate cpu power for all the ai. I wonder if there is a limit how far they can go with how the sim is at the moment etc. We see this with path logic for ground units etc on large servers.

The AI will also help the campaign builders out a lot I believe. Give them more control while there with the new logic perhaps.

Next would be a little tweak to missile logic, just the part where a missile pulls max G when turning at X range for now. No engineer would program a missile to diminish it's speed that way at max mid range you would think.

They could give hourly updates or go totally radio silent, I don’t care. I just want a combat sim where the combat is actually somewhat functional. A flight sim that actually models the environment in which airplanes exist. This strange acceptance that ED is just blowing smoke is not ok. These aren’t things companies could get away with in the past.

 

Whatever. I left DCS four or five years ago because it was a buggy semi functional mess built on promises. It’s still that, with a little better lighting. I guess I’ll check back in another five years.

This strange acceptance that ED is just blowing smoke is not ok. These aren’t things companies could get away with in the past.

EDIT: I will also add, NO one is doing this type of thing, they know what's involved, the work....., price points and reward does not compute in this field (unless subsidized). The only one is a free mod, that has no employees to pay and has been worked on for 20 years (How many hours is that now....) and still needs work. Just to give some perspective.

Oooo, we're getting a full fidelity F-15C next ;)

'The Phantom is such a legendary aircraft that we will certainly simulate it. For now, we already have another aircraft (an EAGLEy awaited one) to work on after the Viper.'