Opinion on new modules alphas, betas etc..

How have you spent $500 on DCS?

 

Is it possible?

Easily done,

My ED Profile Purchases are over $300, And Some of those purchases were during the old 70% off Sales and using Bonus Pooints,

This total also doesnt count the modules I Bought from steam or GameFly, or Kickstarter Pledge for WWII.

Same here...

15 Modules / Terrains, à 39.90 - 49.90....

I'm at $1214.… still waiting to actually play the modules in a decent state.

I've only used KA-50 so far.

What would be your biggest annoyance when Flying in DCS? At the moment, I'm just doing small sand box missions in the Mirage lately, to get more familiar with her,

 

Small sand box missions and learning new aircraft is about the best thing you can do with DCS at this moment. Anything more and you quickly run into engine or performance limitations. Or just start finding bugs in every module.

Small sand box missions and learning new aircraft is about the best thing you can do with DCS at this moment. Anything more and you quickly run into engine or performance limitations. Or just start finding bugs in every module.

I've been flying some of the campaigns off and on, in all the maps and haven't run into many problems so far. When I setup small mission, I do try and keep some things more simple because of the known limitations.

Some frustration here, comes from what you want to get out of DCS, it is trying to accommodate to many things, for many people and what they want out of it. Also the fact that we see other things still getting released, when we know other areas are not finished and up to a DCS standard like the modules are.

This is another form of the frustration here seeing other things getting done and moving forward, keep in mind the 3d Modeling / Texture Artist don't usually code and not all the coders would be able to just drop what they have been working on and go work on the main core engine, AI or damage model. It's all very new tech and most is being created, there would be coders that specialize in AI and others that work on FM's and aircraft systems, like the F18 for example.

All these other coding, 3d Modeling, Texture jobs don't stop because something is still not right with the AI formations, clouds, damage models etc, it would be a very specialize area and very hard to code for and to get right.

Like metzger said about the AI, I too try to give then a fair bit of room when flying with them in missions, they can be very amusing at times.:)

.

I've been flying some of the campaigns off and on, in all the maps and haven't run into many problems so far. When I setup small mission, I do try and keep some things more simple because of the known limitations.

Come on, I seriously doubt you don't constantly run into the NTTR map not having the actual NTTR, the SAMs ported from Ace Combat, the AI FM, damage model, useless cluster munitions, laser-guided AAA, lack of GCI and HUD glass being made of sunglass.

And that is not even counting the standard bugs and inaccuracies of the 'finished' modules, and the low chance that the 'stable' branch is actually stable. :huh:

But hey, at least we'll soon have American trains and more beautiful explosions!

Come on, I seriously doubt you don't constantly run into the NTTR map not having the actual NTTR, the SAMs ported from Ace Combat, the AI FM, damage model, useless cluster munitions, laser-guided AAA, lack of GCI and HUD glass being made of sunglass.

 

 

And that is not even counting the standard bugs and inaccuracies of the 'finished' modules, and the low chance that the 'stable' branch is actually stable. :huh:

 

But hey, at least we'll soon have American trains and more beautiful explosions!

But the work on IA has outside of your zone of responsability. To better AI need a AI codder. To a better DM need a programer, a cooder and a enginier to build them, test them and make QA.

Has similar to a dedicate server (multiplayer codder, server interfacer, game resourse and a long etc).

Enviado desde mi GT-S7580 mediante Tapatalk

I went back to Mirage after 8 months of staying away from it and it because of bugs like INS bombing not working and the bugs are still there, not fixed and still beta, but they already working on harrier which will be probably full priced forever beta as well. So arent the same coders who work on the new module responsible to fix the 1 year old bugs in the released module...

A bug for HSI bearing not correct in January which ruins 1st mission in the campaign was reported 1 year ago and still not fixed.

I don't want to start a fight here against ED, simply kindly ask ED to start fixing bugs and issues with highest priority as they are too much already and new modules and maps will introduce even more.

With the risk of repeating myself, I am freezing my investments in DCS until a major issues are fixed. And I want to mention that I would rather pay for new DM, AI, optimizations and other bug fixes, I have no problems paying them more but I would like to do it for bug fixes and not for new modules currently.

I went back to Mirage after 8 months of staying away from it and it because of bugs like INS bombing not working and the bugs are still there, not fixed and still beta, but they already working on harrier which will be probably full priced forever beta as well. So arent the same coders who work on the new module responsible to fix the 1 year old bugs in the released module...

 

A bug for HSI bearing not correct in January which ruins 1st mission in the campaign was reported 1 year ago and still not fixed.

 

I don't want to start a fight here against ED, simply kindly ask ED to start fixing bugs and issues with highest priority as they are too much already and new modules and maps will introduce even more.

 

With the risk of repeating myself, I am freezing my investments in DCS until a major issues are fixed. And I want to mention that I would rather pay for new DM, AI, optimizations and other bug fixes, I have no problems paying them more but I would like to do it for bug fixes and not for new modules currently.

Not sure about that INS bombing thing? I did see some threads are started for it in the bug section, many things are getting done for the Mirage I see here. These are module specific bugs and that's RAZBAM'S responsibility, not trying to cover for them here, perhaps they need to rewrite some code and or find a solution? I know these guys want it to be as good as they can possibly get it tho.

No fights or arguments here metzger, fully understand the frustration, ED would have the same frustration too! They are trying to get that side of the sim finished and want it done as much as we all do, it just cannot be rushed into existence. Things like AI, damage and ballistic modeling, ATC will take frustrating time for all, and while it's being worked on, other things that need doing will be done by other staff not involved or up to speed in that side of the business, ED just needs to keep pushing everything forward where they can and use the resources they have efficiently. Like I said before, it's not a matter of throwing huge resources at this problem to just get it done, especially in this type of high tech world ED lives in.

Alpha's and beta's can be very frustrating indeed, I total understand if you want to hold back a bit and wait.

.

 

With the risk of repeating myself, I am freezing my investments in DCS until a major issues are fixed. And I want to mention that I would rather pay for new DM, AI, optimizations and other bug fixes, I have no problems paying them more but I would like to do it for bug fixes and not for new modules currently.

I can very well understand that ED has not been willing to fix or even implement many lacking features in DCS that should be core features in combat simulation, because they just have not had ways to do it without doing it second time after sometime.

If we example go and we take a Flanker 2.0 and fly it, and then compare it to Lock-On, Flaming Cliffs 1-2-3 and then to even DCS World 1.2.x or 1.5.x, many can spot the very same core characters in the game haven't changed, while yet many thing has been improved.

But it has been like a building a bridge on soft sand. No matter how pretty and great looking it comes, the bridge will not hold the weight it is suppose to.

How long did we wait NTTR aka DCS 2.0 to come? It was promised for the early A-10C pre-orderers at 2010 or so. When did we get NTTR? Very late 2015, almost 2016. So it was about 6 years.

It takes about 3-5 years to make a full fidelity module (based to M.Wags in the video interview in 2017 E3 in F-18 Hornet debut) so how long can it take to get an map and all the new technologies that still allows to use a old modules?

But regardless of all that, what I don't get is how can some companies keep their products in Alpha or Beta for so long, and even ask for full price?

Like I could understand NTTR being Alpha in a closed circle where there are chosen example 50 well known virtual pilots etc (not based their MP track records etc) and run a Alpha for lets say, 1-2 months. Alpha means that something is barely working, it is a "idea" level and crashing constantly and not having tenth of the needed features. Beta means things are more up to level and big bugs are still left but gotten out. and then are the Release Candidate versions that are in final phases and you can have like RC1-RC3 before hitting final version out if nothing major is coming up.

And then just release the product and keep updating it. No one should expect that a final version is ready, that doesn't need updates! There is NEVER a "ready" product in software development. There is always needs for updates. But now we do not even see a development for BETA products, so what can we expect to see for "released" or "stable" products?

That is what makes DCS World look so bad that we have too many Alpha, Beta and Early Access things, and no updates.

It is almost like the new policy should be made that the product will receive a weekly updates when it is Alpha, at least monthly updates when in beta and if something is early access, it is weekly updates as well for some time and that developers should have someone responsible to do the discussion to community what is happening or that some bugs etc are known and put on to-do lists etc.

But if everyone is waiting ED to finish something major in DCS core, then what can be done? That would then be a bottleneck and slowing everyone else down, meaning others can't do anything else than go forward and continue releasing a alpha/beta/earlyaccess modules while waiting that something is done to get all other versions going forward!

Like what would would happen if Microsoft would need to fix a tiny bug that is affects to everything, making every legacy software incompatible? Not going to get fixed, until someone gets a way to go around the problem (there usually is way, but how much time and money is put to solve such tiny bug)..

Quite honestly, I am also at the point where I won't be making any more purchases in this title, other than Belsimtek's Mi-24 and F-4, because these are two things I just can't resist.

I've long stood by the sim, but enough's enough, and until stability arrives my days of supporting the devs are over, and those of "only buy what I'm extremeley interested in" has begun.

How long did we wait NTTR aka DCS 2.0 to come? It was promised for the early A-10C pre-orderers at 2010 or so. When did we get NTTR? Very late 2015, almost 2016. So it was about 6 years.

Please, a explanation... Old A-10C ple-alpha NTTR was a non-3rd party old T.3 map send to trash by obsolete on 2010. The New NTTR was maked when the T.4 map was matured on late 2015 (expanded on 2016) and Normandy on early 2017, now new Caucasus has incoming with Hormuz map follow them and other future maps incoming...(four maps on 2-4 years). I think you put the map situation as a "disaster" with the new technology get very funny moments......

I can very well understand that ED has not been willing to fix or even implement many lacking features in DCS that should be core features in combat simulation, because they just have not had ways to do it without doing it second time after sometime.

 

If we example go and we take a Flanker 2.0 and fly it, and then compare it to Lock-On, Flaming Cliffs 1-2-3 and then to even DCS World 1.2.x or 1.5.x, many can spot the very same core characters in the game haven't changed, while yet many thing has been improved.

But it has been like a building a bridge on soft sand. No matter how pretty and great looking it comes, the bridge will not hold the weight it is suppose to.

 

How long did we wait NTTR aka DCS 2.0 to come? It was promised for the early A-10C pre-orderers at 2010 or so. When did we get NTTR? Very late 2015, almost 2016. So it was about 6 years.

 

It takes about 3-5 years to make a full fidelity module (based to M.Wags in the video interview in 2017 E3 in F-18 Hornet debut) so how long can it take to get an map and all the new technologies that still allows to use a old modules?

 

But regardless of all that, what I don't get is how can some companies keep their products in Alpha or Beta for so long, and even ask for full price?

 

Like I could understand NTTR being Alpha in a closed circle where there are chosen example 50 well known virtual pilots etc (not based their MP track records etc) and run a Alpha for lets say, 1-2 months. Alpha means that something is barely working, it is a "idea" level and crashing constantly and not having tenth of the needed features. Beta means things are more up to level and big bugs are still left but gotten out. and then are the Release Candidate versions that are in final phases and you can have like RC1-RC3 before hitting final version out if nothing major is coming up.

 

And then just release the product and keep updating it. No one should expect that a final version is ready, that doesn't need updates! There is NEVER a "ready" product in software development. There is always needs for updates. But now we do not even see a development for BETA products, so what can we expect to see for "released" or "stable" products?

 

That is what makes DCS World look so bad that we have too many Alpha, Beta and Early Access things, and no updates.

It is almost like the new policy should be made that the product will receive a weekly updates when it is Alpha, at least monthly updates when in beta and if something is early access, it is weekly updates as well for some time and that developers should have someone responsible to do the discussion to community what is happening or that some bugs etc are known and put on to-do lists etc.

 

But if everyone is waiting ED to finish something major in DCS core, then what can be done? That would then be a bottleneck and slowing everyone else down, meaning others can't do anything else than go forward and continue releasing a alpha/beta/earlyaccess modules while waiting that something is done to get all other versions going forward!

 

Like what would would happen if Microsoft would need to fix a tiny bug that is affects to everything, making every legacy software incompatible? Not going to get fixed, until someone gets a way to go around the problem (there usually is way, but how much time and money is put to solve such tiny bug)..

Old NTTR w/ DCS Beta was a 3rd party Project by a 3rd Party that Folded.

ED Took over and soon realized under DX9C it was not possible to create the Theatre in the Detail desired.

Work on that NTTR Ceased, and Assets were thrown away.

ED Started Working on DX11 Graphics Engine and T4 Terrain Engine, then Restarted NTTR Terrain from scratch.

You Say 2010-2016, and it's more like 2013-2016, and even then, NTTR was being developed while the Graphics Engine, Terrain Engine and SDK was still being developed.

So,

2013-2016: NTTR

2014-2017: Normandy

2014-201x: Hormuz

2014-201x: Caucasus 2.5

Caucasus was originally going to be ported to the new engine, however, ED decided to completely rebuild it for the new engine, with increased 3D Terrainn Mesh resolution, textures, objects, etc etc.

This kinda put Hormuz on Hold for a bit too I imagine, and Normandy was done by a 3rd Party.

NTTR the map is likely done, but the underlying graphics and terrain engine inside of DCS2.0 and 2.5 are still very much WIP. NTTR cannot be pushed to 1.5 stable because it relies on the 2.0 terrain engine. hence it stays on alpha branch.

So if you're gonna throw up dates, please make sure they are correct.

I find it somewhat amazing to read all these whinning posts, cant understand what is to be gained from venting frustration like this ... just dont purchase alfas and betas, and be done with it ... tough they would probably still complain about the core engine bugs and unimplemented details.

For me there is no alternative: civil aviation isnt my cup of tea, and from all the combat flight simulators, I believe that DCS is still the best, even with all its problems.

I will keep purchasing every module, wheter beta or not, but always purchase them on a discount, either a sale, a bundle or a pre-order ... thereafter I try to enjoy every module and do my best to avoid their shortcomings.

Even the much criticized C-101, the Hawk and the Mirage 2000, have given me many hours of enjoyment, so I've never felt that I didnt get my money's worth ... ditto with Nevada and Normandy.

Just my 2 cents, to let developers know that not everyone is so disgusted with their product :)

Best regards.

It would be great if more attention were given to solve bugs on the release version to have everything there working optimal. The 1.5 version is the one that should be used by normal simmer's. As it is now all the discovered bugs in OpenBeta is "pushed" to release without much thoughts, that may be a bit unfair on the "normal simmer". I have said this before as well, maybe there should be more focus on solving more bugs on the OpenBeta before pushing to release. This would make release version stay on same version for longer periods and the OpenBeta being "fixed" more after the update to create a release version of it. So maybe 4 releases in one year to 1.5? :)

Damn. $685.40 on my first account. About another $120 on the second account because I want to test local MP to assist VR's performance. Just haven't gotten around to testing it yet.

I understand the prolonged alpha. But as a company, they need revenue to keep staff on board. It's not like there are investors lining up to give them private equity for such a niche project (or maybe the do on the TFC side of the house).

And WWII stuff was thrown on their lap because 3rd party bailed on them. As a KS supporter, I'm thankful that DCS picked it up.

And there are interlocking issues. I've heard that Belsimtek can't finish the Huey because they are waiting for the T.4 maps. And I totally get that, at some point, you have to wait and develop for the future and stop the throw-away work of supporting legacy. Given that we seem to be closer to release than not, I can see how there could be a backlog of issues.

But honestly, I was hoping DX12 would be supported by now! :)

In the mean time, I do get a lot of pleasure out of taking my A10C for a ride, or Huey for a ride. And I tend to buy every DLC, Maps (except MiGs - maybe it's cultural, but just not interested) to support ED.

But I totally understand your frustration level. It's not w/o reason.

I find it somewhat amazing to read all these whinning posts, cant understand what is to be gained from venting frustration like this ... just dont purchase alfas and betas, and be done with it ... tough they would probably still complain about the core engine bugs and unimplemented details.

I think it's fair for people to voice complaints. It can even go beyond that and be healthy for the product. While you're correct in saying that if people don't like early access they should just avoid it, they can still have preferences for development priority. It would be good for ED to know what people want as it could possibly allow them to make changes to satisfy consumers.

Of course on the other hand, you have to consider what ED can realistically do, and also that they have the last say in everything other than what a person buys. I really do want some revamped individual unit and coalition-wide AI and weapons modeling, but ED is knee deep in the 2.5 transition now and all that comes with it (Admittedly, some of the things coming with it are things I want). It doesn't make sense for them to drop what they're doing already.

ED has their faults (no software company is free from missteps and slipping timelines), but I will never forget how they stepped up to support the customers that invested into the DCS WWII Kickstarter. It is easy to find fault with the split development focus, but when the feces hit the proverbial fan, ED committed to taking responsibility and supporting their customer base.

The current situation is not ideal (no one likes waiting), but if you take a step back and look at how much has been added to DCS in the past 3 years, it is really quite amazing how far things have come.

Despite the bugs/flaws I am overwhelmed every time I launch DCS World and have to decide which module I want to sink some time into. If ED never put out another patch or update, I would still have years (if not decades) of study/playing/fun to invest into DCS.

So if you're gonna throw up dates, please make sure they are correct.

I checked them from the ED newsletters regarding the announcement and then finally releases.

So I made sure I was correct.

I find it somewhat amazing to read all these whinning posts, cant understand what is to be gained from venting frustration like this ... just dont purchase alfas and betas, and be done with it ...

Then there wouldn't be much people buying anything because amount of modules in Beta.

Like when did a Mi-8 get out of beta? Hawk? Is the Viggen already out? How about a F-5 or Mig-21Bis etc...

Check how long it took from releasing early access/open beta and then get thing out, with the bugs that were reported way before the final version.

The thing just is that it is like trying to make a cake where there are half dozen bakers doing own slices of that cake and then you need to fit everything as one whole cake. So everyone is waiting something (Dual-Seat, new graphics/physics engine etc) or then having some other problems that just needs waiting. So what can they do than just release a WIP module?

And userbase wants to fly those things, so either you wait even years, or you just test and report and hope that problems get fixed etc.

ED has their faults (no software company is free from missteps and slipping timelines), but I will never forget how they stepped up to support the customers that invested into the DCS WWII Kickstarter. It is easy to find fault with the split development focus, but when the feces hit the proverbial fan, ED committed to taking responsibility and supporting their customer base.

In my opinion, it was their biggest mistake so far. After this announcement was made, I was concerned that this will force ED to spend considerable amount of resources on converting DCS to a suitable WWII sim and that's exactly what have happened. We're three years after the date promised in the Kickstarter, Normandy is barely usable in early alpha, additional asserts are "in development", damage model is "in development", AI is "in development", among dozens other things that ED is working on right now, simultaneously.

They aren't even supporting their original customer base, who were people interested in modern jet combat. Instead, they expanded into WWII territory, where there already is a pretty strong competition from other WWII simulators and MMO games.

In my opinion, it was their biggest mistake so far. After this announcement was made, I was concerned that this will force ED to spend considerable amount of resources on converting DCS to a suitable WWII sim and that's exactly what have happened. We're three years after the date promised in the Kickstarter, Normandy is barely usable in early alpha, additional asserts are "in development", damage model is "in development", AI is "in development", among dozens other things that ED is working on right now, simultaneously.

 

They aren't even supporting their original customer base, who were people interested in modern jet combat. Instead, they expanded into WWII territory, where there already is a pretty strong competition from other WWII simulators and MMO games.

Normandy was built by a 3rd party and most of the other tech you are taking about, will also help the modern jets too.

I see this quite a bit here, how ED is "simultaneously" doing other things, this needs to happen sometimes, because they need to all eventually come and all be merged together at the end.

"They aren't even supporting their original customer base, who were people interested in modern jet combat."

Well, F/A-18C is going to have 'a full pack' of complex features needed for other modern jets - AG radar, JHMCS, Link 4/16, HUD repeater, automatic landing, AA radar + long range missiles, 3 displays in the cockpit (one with different rendering method), 2 mission computers, Digital FCS, supersonic flight, arrested landings, HARM, Walleye, JDAM/JSOW, etc... So, yes new compex products will be done faster after F/A-18C.

Much has been setup for the modern jets, that will benefit many other modern aircraft, not just for the F18.

ED is in this for the long haul, I don't think their to worried about the competition from those "games". Normandy has only just been released and is looking fantastic, yes it needs some more tweaking and optimizing, give it a little time.

The setback has also come from moving the sim from DX9 to DX11, a BIG step that needed to happen moving into the future, if you stand back a little and look at all this new tech ED is creating, Map and map tools, AI technology, ballistics modeling, weather, missile guidance tech, VR,

ED's getting close to getting this sim back together and moving to the next level, like others here have said, I still get so much enjoyment in this sim now even with it's limitations, when all this starts to come together, it will be cRazy good, the wait for all these new cool toys can be very frustrating. :cry:

.

Remember a point about the WW2. Part of the original RRG Studios has integrate into ED team and actually has the "active" team of WW2

Enviado desde mi GT-S7580 mediante Tapatalk

Normandy was built by a 3rd party and most of the other tech you are taking about, will also help the modern jets too.

 

I see this quite a bit here, how ED is "simultaneously" doing other things, this needs to happen sometimes, because they need to all eventually come and all be merged together at the end.

The Normandy was build by separate entity, but my guess is that a lot of development cost was funded from ED pocket. Same goes with WWII airplanes. Besides, WWII airplanes are made by ED themselves, just look at the credits list in your manual, there are the same people.

The other tech like AI and DM will of course help the modern jets(when/if it gets implemented for them), but the specifics of WWII conflict requires ED to work on these things ASAP. The current implementation was good enough for a modern air combat game, but is very inadequate to simulate WWII combat properly.

Much has been setup for the modern jets, that will benefit many other modern aircraft, not just for the F18.

Yes, and I'm happy that they do that. Though at the same time I wonder where we would be right now if they hadn't poured so many resources in the develoment of WWII map and planes, and focused on a smaller part of aviation, at least for the time being.

The setback has also come from moving the sim from DX9 to DX11, a BIG step that needed to happen moving into the future, if you stand back a little and look at all this new tech ED is creating, Map and map tools, AI technology, ballistics modeling, weather, missile guidance tech, VR,

, plus all the other tech, like the many things in Olgerd's post above, the big one is AG radar that can be use on other modern aircraft moving forward.

That's huge part of the problem we're experiencing, as I've mentioned recently in another thread. ED is spread so thin with so many things "in progress" that they have to outsource Hornet development to Belsimtek to get something out of the doors this year (hopefully).

ED's getting close to getting this sim back together and moving to the next level, like others here have said, I still get so much enjoyment in this sim now even with it's limitations, when all this starts to come together, it will be cRazy good, the wait for all these new cool toys can be very frustrating. :cry:

I remember I've heard the same talk from various people every year since at least 2009. Even said similar things myself. So forgive me for not being overly excited, been here too long for that.