Best news for 2020: Focus on CORE of simulation

That may or may not part of the reason for the issues with core, but there are others if you ask me. Certainly not least of them is the spaghetti code situation we have now and honestly, I dont know if that can be fixed no matter how much money you throw at it.

 

 

Ok , if you assume the money would be used for a complete rewrite from zero , fine, then I 'm willing to pay a one off payment.

 

Another thing is ED focus on things. They could ve set up a lot of things differently from the get-go or at least focused on certain aspects along the road.

 

But some Issues and bugs have languished for years and no one seems to care.Or maybe new ones pop up faster than the old ones can be adressed.

 

 

The A.I system alone has been broken for so long and even now, according to their latest published timelines, its still in the far future category.

Honestly for a sim that supposedly is mainly driven by its singleplayer base , I have trouble getting that logic.

 

But of course its easier to monday-morning quarter back than to get that stuff done, however right now I've lost trust in EDs ability to turn things around and will not be throwing money at them monthly because

I'm not really convinced that will make things turn out differently.

 

 

Regards,

Snappy

 

Obviously I would only pay for such as if that money was spent on exclusive improvement of the core simulation, or possibly features that interact with it. If this would be another false label just to fund other early acces jets, it would be a no go.

 

Bottom line is, they are getting paid to deliver new modules, be it aircraft, ships or a terrain. This has been the case for the last 12 years. Nobody directly pays one cent for them to dig deep and fix underlying core mechanic problems that ruin the sim.

 

 

What is one of the most common issues *the other sim players* bring up against DCS? That the air combat related parts are often laughable..

 

.. yet it is a combat simulation at it's core. Or it's supposed to be, but due to the business model instead generally we are getting cows or other features that only add show-off value.

 

I had a discussion recently with a friend and the core of the discussion was that all simulation has severe simplifications. The important part is whether the end result is behaving "as it should". However in DCS after lots of testing what you often find it seems to be there wasn't even any attempt to make that happen.

 

 

This is the problem. They are not getting paid to bring out the best core simulation possible. They are getting paid to bring out flashy aircraft. It's hard to really see the market that's lost due to this.

 

In my case, I don't play in multiplayer mode (I don't like or like online games in general). I like to play alone offline and in silence.

 

they want economic income?

 

Dcs world +FC3 = 65 euros (without subscriptions or anything unusual) that is ideal.

 

Then in your case you're surely bothered by the mountain of absurd core mechanics that are never fixed?

 

- Missing critical missile guidance features

- Being able to lock burnt out missiles with IR seekers

- Not having any interaction between optical sensors and weather

- ARH guidance being totally absurd (especially in SP) when going active

- Awful AI GCI services

- Wingmen AI

- Extremely unstable mission editing environment, one patch can break all your work

the list goes on..

 

TO ED: I applaud the recent uprising in consideration of core simulation issues this year. The activities seem to be also a lot more transparent too, which is another great thing. However I'm afraid until the business model is changed this will ultimately never be really solved. I can't count how many times I've heard or read "this or that team is busy with that project". As long as the majority of developers are working on other stuff and core development is just a "mini project", this will not change. Temporarily you can reorganize them to focus on something, but long term if the income is based on modules and not the sandbox development itself, in the end people will always end up developing modules.

Obviously I would only pay for such as if that money was spent on exclusive improvement of the core simulation, or possibly features that interact with it. If this would be another false label just to fund other early acces jets, it would be a no go.

 

Bottom line is, they are getting paid to deliver new modules, be it aircraft, ships or a terrain. This has been the case for the last 12 years. Nobody directly pays one cent for them to dig deep and fix underlying core mechanic problems that ruin the sim.

 

 

What is one of the most common issues *the other sim players* bring up against DCS? That the air combat related parts are often laughable..

 

.. yet it is a combat simulation at it's core. Or it's supposed to be, but due to the business model instead generally we are getting cows or other features that only add show-off value.

 

I had a discussion recently with a friend and the core of the discussion was that all simulation has severe simplifications. The important part is whether the end result is behaving "as it should". However in DCS after lots of testing what you often find it seems to be there wasn't even any attempt to make that happen.

 

 

This is the problem. They are not getting paid to bring out the best core simulation possible. They are getting paid to bring out flashy aircraft. It's hard to really see the market that's lost due to this.

 

 

 

Then in your case you're surely bothered by the mountain of absurd core mechanics that are never fixed?

 

- Missing critical missile guidance features

- Being able to lock burnt out missiles with IR seekers

- Not having any interaction between optical sensors and weather

- ARH guidance being totally absurd (especially in SP) when going active

- Awful AI GCI services

- Wingmen AI

- Extremely unstable mission editing environment, one patch can break all your work

the list goes on..

 

TO ED: I applaud the recent uprising in consideration of core simulation issues this year. The activities seem to be also a lot more transparent too, which is another great thing. However I'm afraid until the business model is changed this will ultimately never be really solved. I can't count how many times I've heard or read "this or that team is busy with that project". As long as the majority of developers are working on other stuff and core development is just a "mini project", this will not change. Temporarily you can reorganize them to focus on something, but long term if the income is based on modules and not the sandbox development itself, in the end people will always end up developing modules.

 

The solution is the one I have said: DCS WORLD + Flaming Clifs 3 for 65 euros, or leave the modules aside momentarily and focus on the graphics engine that is the basis and the main thing so that everything works well, to which I I deny, rather ... what most of us refuse is to use the excuse to fix the graphics engine based on a monthly subscription, NO, first they prioritize the engine and if they need to do an entire rework of the graphics engine and focus on it.

 

A somewhat stupid example: it is like the politicians, we need to raise more taxes because of our ineptitude, when they should be the ones who have to fix the problems or try to avoid them without the need to rob the citizen based on invented taxes.

 

Let's be clear: with this example I don't mean that the Eagle team are thieves and useless. (I don't want my words to be misinterpreted)

The solution is the one I have said: DCS WORLD + Flaming Clifs 3 for 65 euros, or leave the modules aside momentarily and focus on the graphics engine that is the basis and the main thing so that everything works well, to which I I deny, rather ... what most of us refuse is to use the excuse to fix the graphics engine based on a monthly subscription, NO, first they prioritize the engine and if they need to do an entire rework of the graphics engine and focus on it.

 

A somewhat stupid example: it is like the politicians, we need to raise more taxes because of our ineptitude, when they should be the ones who have to fix the problems or try to avoid them without the need to rob the citizen based on invented taxes.

 

Let's be clear: with this example I don't mean that the Eagle team are thieves and useless. (I don't want my words to be misinterpreted)

 

FC3 is irrelevant. It either has to be that the sandbox is a one time payment, or a subscription.

 

The vast majority of problems have nothing to do with the graphics engine.

FC3 is irrelevant. It either has to be that the sandbox is a one time payment, or a subscription.

 

The vast majority of problems have nothing to do with the graphics engine.

 

It makes it easier for me, DCS+A10C=65 euros, people will buy it, and yes, the graphics engine or something that is not well optimized, the fps drops that the simulator has are not half normal in all types of PCs

The solution is the one I have said: DCS WORLD + Flaming Clifs 3 for 65 euros, or leave the modules aside momentarily and focus on the graphics engine that is the basis and the main thing so that everything works well, to which I I deny, rather ... what most of us refuse is to use the excuse to fix the graphics engine based on a monthly subscription, NO, first they prioritize the engine and if they need to do an entire rework of the graphics engine and focus on it.

 

If they leave the modules aside for a while, where is their funding coming from? Why would they even bother upgrading the graphics engine for free? Or add new features to DCS world, or even clearing up all the old bugs that are there? It is clear to everybody that the current financial model of just selling new modules is the reason the core game is in such a state as it is.

 

So the only solution eventually is to stop making DCS world for free. I'm sure this was a marketing decision when the game came to the market, but right now the resources that are needed to work on such a complex program is not sustainable anymore by selling flashy aircraft modules alone. Now of course they can charge a one time fee to lets say purchase DCS world 3.0 and for that amount they promise a certain time of bug fixing. After that when 4.0 comes out, you'll be charged another update fee etc. It used to work for most paid software packages like this. However more have switch over to a subscription model now which i think is much more affordable for most people, and guarantees the developer a more steady funding.

 

Look at how the music and movie industry changed by going to subscription based solutions instead of purchase. I think gaming should go in the same direction. It's just weird to see that so many people are against funding DCS world, while we all need relatively high end hardware to play this game in the first place. Whats the point to spend high $$$ on hardware when the software runs like crap?

It makes it easier for me, DCS+A10C=65 euros, people will buy it, and yes, the graphics engine or something that is not well optimized, the fps drops that the simulator has are not half normal in all types of PCs

 

It was running fairly well on 2.5.5. Lots of room for improvement, but the graphics is by far not the worst issue.

 

IMO a trial period one module of 1 or 2 weeks on sandbox purchase, sub or one time paid would make a lot more sense. Any newcomer could pick something he'd like to try, if he likes it he will buy it.

If they leave the modules aside for a while, where is their funding coming from? Why would they even bother upgrading the graphics engine for free? Or add new features to DCS world, or even clearing up all the old bugs that are there? It is clear to everybody that the current financial model of just selling new modules is the reason the core game is in such a state as it is.

 

So the only solution eventually is to stop making DCS world for free. I'm sure this was a marketing decision when the game came to the market, but right now the resources that are needed to work on such a complex program is not sustainable anymore by selling flashy aircraft modules alone. Now of course they can charge a one time fee to lets say purchase DCS world 3.0 and for that amount they promise a certain time of bug fixing. After that when 4.0 comes out, you'll be charged another update fee etc. It used to work for most paid software packages like this. However more have switch over to a subscription model now which i think is much more affordable for most people, and guarantees the developer a more steady funding.

 

Look at how the music and movie industry changed by going to subscription based solutions instead of purchase. I think gaming should go in the same direction. It's just weird to see that so many people are against funding DCS world, while we all need relatively high end hardware to play this game in the first place. Whats the point to spend high $$$ on hardware when the software runs like crap?

 

This. People don't even think for a second to spend thousands of dollars on simulation equipment, but can't afford to spend 10 € a month to make their chosen hobby a thousandfold better?

 

The core of air combat simulation is the experience. Not owning a copy of a module. Everybody always wants to own things. Just look at it as investing a steady amount of cash to enjoy something you like doing. That sounds very alien right? Oh wait, every other hobby in existence is like that..

I'd rather pay a little extra to have a functioning software instead of alltogether stopping to use it at all because multiplayer once again is borderline unplayable for over the last month.

 

Clearly the current business model does not support a well maintained and evolving core simulation. If it did not for the last 12 years, it won't change now.

 

In what reality do you think that this software would be functional if you paid a subscription fee? Many other games have gone the route of having people subscribe and they have periods where they go through days, and even weeks of down time after updates or whatever. Their internet play is certainly no better than it would be.

Quite honestly, ED's current model isn't the issue here. I would like to think that It's more their lack of foresight.

At this point, I barely ever fly DCS any more. I don't purchase any modules, and I would certainly never entertain a subscription. It would be a disaster for all of us and for ED. The community would pretty much drop to unsustainable lows.

I would start purchasing modules again if I saw ED starting to keep the promises on the modules that I already have. There was a time that I purchased every module. I would have kept doing so if I hadn't started evaluating the modules that I already had and seen a lot of stuff that had been promised but never delivered on years after release and out of beta. Asking money from your customers every month to use something that's not complete after years of waiting is unreasonable.

This. People don't even think for a second to spend thousands of dollars on simulation equipment, but can't afford to spend 10 € a month to make their chosen hobby a thousandfold better?

 

The core of air combat simulation is the experience. Not owning a copy of a module. Everybody always wants to own things. Just look at it as investing a steady amount of cash to enjoy something you like doing. That sounds very alien right? Oh wait, every other hobby in existence is like that..

 

Because not every solution is throwing good money after bad. The core of the sim is in its current state (as has been faltering for the past 12 years) is because of their failures, not mine as the consumer. I shouldn't have to pay them to fix something that shouldn't be broken in the first place. I also shouldn't have to "incentivize" them to complete their modules by paying some random "getting out of EA tax." Their incentive should be my ceasing to patronize their company if they do not deliver. And you are automatically assuming that all will be right with "just the right amount of funding." Where did this magical 10 Euro per month cost come from? I can make it seem even better; if we send 5 Euro per month as a tithing, ED will be able to fix the VR issues, MP issues, AI, weather, ATC, missile logic, and release a dynamic campaign in under a year. No idea how, just more money = great success (?).

 

A subscription model will kill this game fast. Few will bank on the game getting better because we're throwing more money at them. Those that do will see their money not spent how they believe it should be (or success reached at an unacceptable rate) and will cease to subscribe and we'll be either back to module payments or worse.

 

The core game being the "experience" from what I've seen is wholly because of the community as far as MP goes. From blue flag to users creating their own campaigns, it is the people who provide for the combat experience. ED has made a really cool cockpit simulator but the combat environment portion of this experience is severely lacking.

Edited April 7, 2020 by Thump

Whelp, looks like my post was a bit late.

When you buy a module, you buy it for the current state of DCS World. We can't expect software to be continuously updated from a one time purchase. All they have to do is when DCS World 3.0 comes out to make it a subscription. People who don't want to buy into that can perfectly keep using their current modules under DCS 2.5. The continuous evolution of the core software needs to be separated from the module purchases. Right now everybody is frustrated with the state the game is in, and if they continue like this it will just got worse from here on.

I agree with you, but DCS has evolved in a continuous way since it started, meaning that assets remain the same between the different versions. If a different version comes out and requests users to pay subscription or buy modules again, it'd need to bring substantial improvements over the previous one. As an example, the F-18 in DCS 3.0 would need to have a different cockpit (3D model and/or textures) that takes advantage of the changes in 3.0, with features that weren't available in 2.5, such as canopy icing effects, real time dynamic reflections, new FLIR system or a working ECM system, for example. It wouldn't make sense to just port the existing F-18 over. DCS 3.0 would need to be a new game, essentially.

 

Plus, any early access products would need to be finished before the current platform is dropped, because people who bought them, paid for the finished product and they should be able to remain in the current platform of DCS, with their finished modules, if they wish.

 

DCS can only evolve continuously as a platform, right now, because of the above point. And so a change of payment model is possible, but it cannot be forced on people who already bought modules with the understanding that they will be able to use them freely after their purchase.

 

Plus, any early access products would need to be finished before the current platform is dropped, because people who bought them, paid for the finished product and they should be able to remain in the current platform of DCS, with their finished modules, if they wish.

 

 

Considering the A10 is still getting updates nearly a decade after launch, ED would have draw a firm line in the stand for when a module is finished enough. And I can only imagine the howls of complaint from those who don’t think a subscription model is worth considering.

 

But back to the topic, ED has made claims about substantial core improvements for many, many years now, with most never being realised. Can I ask why anybody thinks this latest PR drop will turn out to be any different? I’ve been an on/off player since LOMAC, and can only see things getting worse with the reliance upon the Early Access finance model. Maybe ED should only release one module per year, take a bigger cut on third party modules, and focus on DCS itself?

I agree with you, but DCS has evolved in a continuous way since it started, meaning that assets remain the same between the different versions. If a different version comes out and requests users to pay subscription or buy modules again, it'd need to bring substantial improvements over the previous one. As an example, the F-18 in DCS 3.0 would need to have a different cockpit (3D model and/or textures) that takes advantage of the changes in 3.0, with features that weren't available in 2.5, such as canopy icing effects, real time dynamic reflections, new FLIR system or a working ECM system, for example. It wouldn't make sense to just port the existing F-18 over. DCS 3.0 would need to be a new game, essentially.

.

 

That's why i'm saying the funding for DCS world and the aircraft modules should be separated. Once you buy an aircraft module you should be able to keep using it in DCS world unless there is a big upgrade to the module. But a separate way of funding DCS world, either by subscription or a one time purchase, would maybe give them the resources to really give the core simulator the overhaul it needs and keep it updated. Other flight simulators are taking big leaps forward right now, while DCS can barely run properly in it's current state. And still people are asking for more new features, better graphics especially for VR, better weather, better AI, better MP performance, better dynamic campaigns while the core sim right now can not even handle the current feature list. All ED is doing in my opinion is promising new features that take so long before they are realized, hardware has improved and keeps allowing them to stick with their old code. Sure we can all drop $$$$ on the new Nvidia 3080ti and the newest $$$$ Intel CPU's at 5.3Ghz to keep the thing running on 1 core. I'd be more happy to see more development to the core simulator, even if that costs a few $ per month.

Hi all

 

looks like this thread is going off topic, we have a subscription payment thread here

 

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=255290&page=31

 

please try to get this topic back on track

 

"Best news for 2020: Focus on CORE of simulation"

 

thanks

 

Sorry if this looks like off topic, how ever this discussion is about the promised improvements to the core simulator, not if a subscription or other payment model is better or worse. I think this topic should be able to discuss this.

In what reality do you think that this software would be functional if you paid a subscription fee? Many other games have gone the route of having people subscribe and they have periods where they go through days, and even weeks of down time after updates or whatever. Their internet play is certainly no better than it would be.

Quite honestly, ED's current model isn't the issue here. I would like to think that It's more their lack of foresight.

At this point, I barely ever fly DCS any more. I don't purchase any modules, and I would certainly never entertain a subscription. It would be a disaster for all of us and for ED. The community would pretty much drop to unsustainable lows.

 

+1000

I wouldn't call it "lack of foresight". It's just so that a large majority of new people coming into DCS in the last few years, especially since the release of the Hornet, are quite spoiled when it comes to what they expect in terms of "bugs" and "graphics", coming from AAA titles which have a completely different target audience.

 

The pilots which know DCS from before the times where there were clickable jet cockpits, do look at DCS more from a aviation simulator point of view (which they should) and not focusing on or crying about bugs which are not even breaking the experience totally or are not up to date graphics, like people who buy every shooter title from AAA studios. Those knowing and being with DCS longer than the Hornet release are collectively more thankful and patient with ED than the newer folk.

 

Right now they are growing out of a super niche where they've been and have quite a bit more ... responsibility should I say, and eyes on them due to their name they have made for themselves. A lot of people, especially the new ones just have not enough patience. Some are even quite arrogant.

 

Throwing money at it won't hasten the growth, same way the available graphics cards from Nvidia or AMD just will not be released faster only because people would be willing to pay/pay more as usual.

Edited April 7, 2020 by Der Hirte

Throwing money at it won't hasten the growth, same way the available graphics cards from Nvidia or AMD just will not be released faster only because people would be willing to pay/pay more as usual.

 

I partly disagree with that last sentence. Given limited time, manpower and money, they have to balance this. If they only make money via modules and none directly via the core, there is no incentive for them to keep the core better than the absolute minimum needed to support any module.

 

And this is exactly what we have seen. Hence my proposal to have a premium core as payware for the first year or two at release and then release it for free once the cost for making it has been recuperated and then some.

 

But from a business perspective, the incentive structure focuses on the modules and not on the core, which why it has taken us how many years until we got EDGE and now will have to wait another "long term" as they call it for Vulkan.

 

I'd be perfectly willing to pay the full price of a module or two to get the manpower in place to speed up core development. Hell, I'd donate at this point monthly for that. Call it a subscription if you want to, but as long as it isn't mandatory, people can't bitch and complain. Or make DCS 3.0 a kickstarter and I'll back it.

 

Can I please pay money dedicated towards accelerated or including more functionality core?

This was the best news, from my angle, in the Upcoming 2020 development statement:

 

"Most of the Eagle Dynamics team will be focused on improvements to the DCS World core that includes performance improvements, more realistic lighting, a new cloud and weather system, an outstanding damage modeling, a new airfield air traffic control system, air-to-ground radar and Forward Looking Infrared (FLIR) sensors, improved missile dynamics, more life-like AI, new AI units, and a dynamic campaign system."

 

My emphases added.

 

Good work, ED! :thumbup:

 

 

Yes, I hope they fix the weather.

 

 

Presently, clouds cannot be lower than 300 meters. Cloud ceilings should be able to be set a lot lower than that, down to the surface (it becomes fog then).

 

 

 

Wars are not only fought in nice weather. Those air forces that can fight in all weather conditions win. Being able to take off and land in shitty weather is part of that.

 

 

 

Here's Jimmy Stewart landing a B-47 in very crappy weather, when they were doing GCA's then. Pick it up at 5:00

 

 

 

 

 

Also, on-board ILS guidance has been flawed ever since Flanker 2. Actually, the behaviour of the flight director and CDI in ILS mode were quite accurately modeled in Flanker (1). Then they decided to rewrite the whole code.

I think I did read somewhere that halfway down the road they discovered clouds and weather revamp was significantly more difficult than expected (I think this was one of the cases where the issue was leftover spaghetti)? I'll have a look if I can find the thing but, does anybody know where that was?

When did you read this, SPAS79 ?

I'd love to see the updated weather aswell. Would make it much more spicy to fly (ok I admit as soon as it arrives I'll probably be bitching about it :D). It's been the same couple of missions going on in MP always for years and it gets very stale eventually. You can't even use the current weather system because it more or less kills stability.

Multi core support would allow to implement advanced weather, advanced AI, more graphical effects, bigger maps, more physical calculations, dynamic campaign, more ground forces AND improved performance.

 

 

what do you mean by improved physics?

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited April 9, 2020 by Xilon_x

When did you read this, SPAS79 ?