Ed problems

you can use a planned release pln, like Starcitizen

 

The moment you used Star Citizen as an example, you completely lost your point. Eagle Dynamics is nowhere near what Chris is (not) doing. That's a very poor example.

The moment you used Star Citizen as an example

 

Is that the piece of software I heard of that needs an i9-13900K, 128GB of DDR6 6400 RAM and a RTX 5080Ti with 32GB VRAM to run in pancake mode and even more for VR?

We are still looking at options and possibilities.

 

thanks

 

 

Do yourselves a favour and dont introduce up/downvote features or youll catch a little but loud minority faking to be "the majority"/shitstorming you.

There's a fair side to those arguments but in general it'll always end up with this: There is a reason there is no talk when there is no ...

 

• end-user useful
  
• practical
  
• important
  
• product relevant
  
• ..etc
  

 

.. information.

 

 

 

But some people just enjoy the amazing sights of ....

 

Maximum Transparency :music_whistling:

 

 

 

But I'm not just saying that from the other point of view ... I as a user really don't want to know.

 

Some people just expect this to be something that was never intended to be, where the jurney is the destination but in a different way what I usually have in mind***. You're suppose to up on the deck sightseeing the sea and islands (product), not down in the engine room bothering the coal-loader guy, the cruise ship wasn't intended for it, they didn't sell the ticket for that, and so gaming companies usually don't sell their working activity either.

 

If you want to do engine room there's a place, time, circumstances, arrangement for that, you'd need to hire a boat owner to explain boating to you ... but he's not going to tell you ALL of his own drama, it's not for sale.

 

It's just the balance, how much updates is too much, frequency, detail, ... what if a change happens and then you would think it was a broken promise ... the risk is not empty. But this serious need for even more updates is something else and I think I've at least partially figured out over the years ... I've seen many gaming forums talking more about the stock market and all the side issues instead of the actual products the forums were intended to be about. This, what I began to call, thecorporation-football has become a new online sport that probably needs it's own dedicated place, where it's more about the development journey and all the details sorrounding that aren't even part of the product, with constant little updates on the status being as little poofs of smoke for a dopamine rush.

 

***: I advocate the slower pace journey experience, where you as a user really digest and get the most out of each product feature update before even thinking about the next one ... and coincidentially it's easier/better on the devs ... and you get your dopamine rush, like you suppose to, from that enjoyment of the product it self, not from the update/talk about the product.

 

Perhaps a season of How It's Made could do the trick to help some through the wait: :)

 

Edited May 10, 2020 by Worrazen

I don't think EDs problem is communication lately. They do communicate. In many different ways. From info about the development to deeds like giving free access for a month to almost all modules (this communicates good will, wish for a test in business model, worrying about future since Covid, etc).

What EDs lacks is development in the core game.

For years we couldn't set up our controls while in game, then, finally we could... in single player... years later... we could do it in multiplayer... then some more years and we can not only do that but we could plug in a controller while in game and then program the controls! Wow! Sure... adds some stutters and some disable the feature but... Then more time passes and now we can sort the controls by collapsing the categories, we can delete individual categories controls... amazing! 30 years later basically. We still can't copy controls from a Su27 to Su33 or have all developers have a basic set of controls named and programmed in totality in the same manner and then ability to quickly copy that base set so we can start using a new module... no... usually we still need to delete 12 assignments of axis and buttons of our rudder pedals.

And this is just a small example of little frustrating things that evolve so slow that basically they don't.

 

Other examples.

 

Ability to spawn via a menu from Game Master at least all the units already placed in the mission and set on late activation by various triggers and scripts. To see them too in layers. Asking for ability to just add units with task like in ME live while the game is running the mission would be asking for the moon for a game engine designed basically in the 90s

 

The mission editor, made only for few OCD professionals of mission editing and scripting basically cuts off 99.9% of community that would really add value to the game by creating crazy missions at first if it wouldn't be so powerful yet so incapable. Simple redesign of Units Panel that can show layers, groups etc. Redesign off triggers menu that can group the triggers and show them in trees not simple accounting lists.

 

Simple way to spawn groups (presets/templates) of units easy to use by the rest of 99.99% of people. Spawn a column... small, medium, large, bias to AAA or Armor or transport. Spawn a CAS group... same quick parameters. ETC

 

Basically there are 3rd party fan made mission editors... editors that show more potential and power than EDs editor. Yet they are still unusable by most of people.

 

I don't consider myself a low level ME user, I would say I can build really complex missions, but it takes me 20 times more time to do it than necessary and then I observe that sometimes my "lower ME skilled level" squad mates can have better ideas in 3 seconds after joining the game but inability to implement them due to no fault of their own... they might not have the time to lose on understanding needlessly complicated procedures.

 

What else is lacking?

 

Ability to sort slots on a multiplayer server by airfields and planes or tipe of tasks. NO! We still need to scroll through 300 slots and the designers still needs to waste years of his life carefully naming the units so they make minimum sense to the joining players.

 

How much time and money would the core game improvements take? I can't estimate but I can guessestimate that less than a F18C module.

 

ED's probably with every new model in a dilema.

 

Build a F17 (j/k) and gain maybe 10 000 clients paying that module

or

Build improvements in the core game and then gain 1 000 or 100 000 clients that might or might not buy the existings modules.

 

I think we can see where the choice leans... But imho... on the long term the game would look so odd that the core DCS game might not be salvageable. Nice modules but in a barren game compared to competition. One might say that there is a big possibility that a 3rd party would build a ME in a certain in development civil sim that might just give the final blow. And then... the likes of Razbam and Heatblur could not afford to ignore the market share...

 

just saying...

Coming from that “other” combat sim, as well as the civil sim world, the core issues are the ones that drive me the most insane with DCS, and the reason I have never really been hooked. Sooner or later they have to bite the bullet and work on this if they want to maintain a modern, relevant simulator.

 

I believe that ED should focus on all the areas constantly raised by the community such, as AI models, AI behaviour, ATC, weather, data cards, in mission planning, ect just to name a few. Release this as DCS 3.0, and most importantly, charge us for it! I don’t expect all this work to come for free, and understand EA need revenue to survive. So charge a reasonable amount for DCS 3.0, with all the bells and whistles people have been wishing for. But.. no early access, or pre-sale, just get it right and release it.

 

I’d also leave big ticket items such as the dynamic campaign out, and sell that as a separate module. The amount of work involved with that alone would justify an additional purchase.

 

Ultimately, I think it’s time for a strategy change, and leave most of the content creation, (aircraft, theatres etc) to the third party devs. Go down the P3D, MSFS, X-Plane route of releasing a new core sim every 2 years or so. I’d definitely pay $$ for it.

Edited May 11, 2020 by norman99

I believe that ED should focus on all the areas constantly by the community raised such, as AI models, AI behaviour, ATC, weather, data cards, in mission planning, ect just to name a few. Release this as DCS 3.0, and most importantly, charge us for it!.

 

 

I really agree with this, charge us for 3.0 but include one ED plane of choice (FC would count as one) or maybe just include the FC planes with it.

Coming from that “other” combat sim, as well as the civil sim world, the core issues are the ones that drive me the most insane with DCS, and the reason I have never really been hooked. Sooner or later they have to bite the bullet and work on this if they want to maintain a modern, relevant simulator.

 

I believe that ED should focus on all the areas constantly raised by the community such, as AI models, AI behaviour, ATC, weather, data cards, in mission planning, ect just to name a few. Release this as DCS 3.0, and most importantly, charge us for it! I don’t expect all this work to come for free, and understand EA need revenue to survive. So charge a reasonable amount for DCS 3.0, with all the bells and whistles people have been wishing for. But.. no early access, or pre-sale, just get it right and release it.

 

I’d also leave big ticket items such as the dynamic campaign out, and sell that as a separate module. The amount of work involved with that alone would justify an additional purchase.

 

Ultimately, I think it’s time for a strategy change, and leave most of the content creation, (aircraft, theatres etc) to the third party devs. Go down the P3D, MSFS, X-Plane route of releasing a new core sim every 2 years or so. I’d definitely pay $$ for it.

 

Correct IMO, And I say this as someone who loves DCS overall. But you are correct, especially the bite the bullet part. At this point claiming DCS simulates "modern" combat is a laughable and very easily falseible claim at this point, at least by anyone who knows anything about "modern" air combat.

 

What DCS is does well is graphics (aside from FPS guys, remember those?) what DCS does reasonably well are FM's and the basic button pushing on modern aircraft, and I don't mean to make that sound simple, its not by any means and I think what ED does there is mostly good, and most of the 3rd party devs do a decent job of it too.

 

The fundamental problems they have revolve around the fact they entirely ignore the "modern combat" parts of the core sim. Some of which are hard, some of which are not IMO.

 

I mean their ECM simulation would be considered primitive in the 1940's, yup WW2... Let that sink in... Its laughable by the 60's with basic ECM techniques of that era. By 2007? Draw your own conclusions.... And that unfortunately applies across the board for a lot of things that are central to modern air combat experience.

 

Or alternately, the whole AA missile debate, things like guidance and so forth or kinematics etc. And that's been broken for some time. Now 1-2 missiles at time get "fixed" which causes more problems on the MP servers, and smaller issues in the SP experience.

 

Or the damage modeling or AG weapons modeling issue. Etc. Etc.

 

Then it gets compounded by the fact that IMO they are going too modern. They could probably get most of the actual docs and information for say 80's maybe 90's era jets with enough detail to do things like ECM and IADS. 2007? probably not. Its not fair, but it is what it is. When you have to get a license from whoever, and they say, well don't model this system or that system, and change the range of this system to something absurd, it doesn't really do ED any favors in the "realism dept". I mean fine, if your audience is a bunch of 14 year olds playing war thunder who have no clue whatsoever, but at the end of the day I at least like to think most hardcore flight sims raised the bar at least back in the day. And there are plenty of "simmers" that do know better as the core audience.

 

And then there is the actual gameplay question, whats more fun/satisfying? Lobbing fox3's at some dot on your radar, then going defensive against something on your RWR? And then wondering, did I hit the guy, lemme check the SA page, is there one less red triangle on there, maybe, well I'm outa gas and I yeeted all my fox 3's, so RTB...

 

Or getting to the merge? Making that hard turn in whatever direction, maneuvering, worrying about your E state and keeping track of the bogey, getting on his 6, and letting off a fox2 and watching it track in on your opponent and seeing the splash? And buggin out of the fight while managing battle damage or a low fuel state.

 

IDK maybe I'm in the minority, maybe not, but in a game, the second sounds more fun to me.

 

Same thing for ground attack. Quick lemme punch in a bunch of coordinates (which should be on a mission planning data card BTW), and then fly for XX minutes, get in range of the target, but well outside of sam range, and pickle off a bunch of smart bombs. Turn around and fly home. I mean its kinda realistic, but is it actually fun? I mean I can get a hifi simulation of a 737, and for some people its fun, but not for me personally.

 

OR

 

Going in 30 feet on the deck, using terrain masking to hide from the somewhat primitive, but rather deadly SAM threat, sliding under some enemy interceptors at high altitude that are being distracted by your escort flight, and then popping up a the last minute and delivering the ordnance on target X, while dodging some semi effective SHORADS and AAA.

 

IDK... I know its different strokes for different folks, but in some ways I think ED is missing the forest for the trees. And I bet if they made side by side video's of the situations I described, I'd bet my preferences sold better. Just sayin...

Correct IMO, And I say this as someone who loves DCS overall. But you are correct, especially the bite the bullet part. At this point claiming DCS simulates "modern" combat is a laughable and very easily falseible claim at this point, at least by anyone who knows anything about "modern" air combat.

 

 

 

What DCS is does well is graphics (aside from FPS guys, remember those?) what DCS does reasonably well are FM's and the basic button pushing on modern aircraft, and I don't mean to make that sound simple, its not by any means and I think what ED does there is mostly good, and most of the 3rd party devs do a decent job of it too.

 

 

 

The fundamental problems they have revolve around the fact they entirely ignore the "modern combat" parts of the core sim. Some of which are hard, some of which are not IMO.

 

 

 

I mean their ECM simulation would be considered primitive in the 1940's, yup WW2... Let that sink in... Its laughable by the 60's with basic ECM techniques of that era. By 2007? Draw your own conclusions.... And that unfortunately applies across the board for a lot of things that are central to modern air combat experience.

 

 

 

Or alternately, the whole AA missile debate, things like guidance and so forth or kinematics etc. And that's been broken for some time. Now 1-2 missiles at time get "fixed" which causes more problems on the MP servers, and smaller issues in the SP experience.

 

 

 

Or the damage modeling or AG weapons modeling issue. Etc. Etc.

 

 

 

Then it gets compounded by the fact that IMO they are going too modern. They could probably get most of the actual docs and information for say 80's maybe 90's era jets with enough detail to do things like ECM and IADS. 2007? probably not. Its not fair, but it is what it is. When you have to get a license from whoever, and they say, well don't model this system or that system, and change the range of this system to something absurd, it doesn't really do ED any favors in the "realism dept". I mean fine, if your audience is a bunch of 14 year olds playing war thunder who have no clue whatsoever, but at the end of the day I at least like to think most hardcore flight sims raised the bar at least back in the day. And there are plenty of "simmers" that do know better as the core audience.

 

 

 

And then there is the actual gameplay question, whats more fun/satisfying? Lobbing fox3's at some dot on your radar, then going defensive against something on your RWR? And then wondering, did I hit the guy, lemme check the SA page, is there one less red triangle on there, maybe, well I'm outa gas and I yeeted all my fox 3's, so RTB...

 

 

 

Or getting to the merge? Making that hard turn in whatever direction, maneuvering, worrying about your E state and keeping track of the bogey, getting on his 6, and letting off a fox2 and watching it track in on your opponent and seeing the splash? And buggin out of the fight while managing battle damage or a low fuel state.

 

 

 

IDK maybe I'm in the minority, maybe not, but in a game, the second sounds more fun to me.

 

 

 

Same thing for ground attack. Quick lemme punch in a bunch of coordinates (which should be on a mission planning data card BTW), and then fly for XX minutes, get in range of the target, but well outside of sam range, and pickle off a bunch of smart bombs. Turn around and fly home. I mean its kinda realistic, but is it actually fun? I mean I can get a hifi simulation of a 737, and for some people its fun, but not for me personally.

 

 

 

OR

 

 

 

Going in 30 feet on the deck, using terrain masking to hide from the somewhat primitive, but rather deadly SAM threat, sliding under some enemy interceptors at high altitude that are being distracted by your escort flight, and then popping up a the last minute and delivering the ordnance on target X, while dodging some semi effective SHORADS and AAA.

 

 

 

IDK... I know its different strokes for different folks, but in some ways I think ED is missing the forest for the trees. And I bet if they made side by side video's of the situations I described, I'd bet my preferences sold better. Just sayin...

I generally agree, except for the last part. Like you said, different strokes for different people. I find modern jets more fun because I enjoy the avionics, sensor management and the tactics that become available because of it (except ECM, we really need some form of that). You can always limit yourself or find a server that's Cold War focused, so if you dislike modern stuff, that's easily solved.

The issue with information access is also true, but since devs need to prove where their data comes from to ED (at least that's what I've heard), we can assume that at least it's accurate for the most part. Plus, let's not forget that not all modules are based on publicly available data (not classified does not equate to publicly available on the internet). The A-10C probably wasn't, when it launched, the JF-17 isn't. And Razbam got info from the AdA that helped with the Mirage. The real issue is not data access, but the fact that there's a huge backlog of changes to be made in existing systems and weapons.

And I know it's not a good solution, but a lot of these changes can be made by users in the meantime and even taken online, after coordinating with other players and having everyone adopt them, same as a lot of servers/squadrons have mods that are required to fly with them. It's not an ideal solution, not even a good one. But until ED does it themselves, there's at least an option to bring some values close to the real ones.

Ultimately ED has two core issues they need to resolve.

 

1.

 

Are they the game architect first, and dabble in minor content creation on the side? Or are they the primary content creators for DCS World, producing the leading modules and most detailed/realistic content?

 

Currently, the way the depth and breadth of DCS has grown, they no longer have the resources to do both adequately.

 

2.

 

Are they striving for the best combat gaming experience, of the most realistic simulation? Again, currently they're trying to do both simultaneously, which is just not possible.

 

On one hand they promote their realism and deny features because it "doesn't work like that in the real world" (Hornet radar elevation control anyone....) Yet on the other hand, you have Nick posting about how the entire game is designed to force the merge for the sake of game play, and missile/radar/notch/anything else behavior has all been biased towards this goal. These two ideals completely contradict each other.

 

At present, ED seem to have lost focus of who it is they actually are. They want to be all things to all people, when both sim/game ideology, and resources show that is no longer possible.

 

Until they can decide this, I don't see how any meaningful change can take place. DCS will continue stumbling around from one place to another, being both the best and worst combat simulator at the same time. Amazing us, and completely frustrating us, in equal measures.