CE2... Why? Good? Bad? - Page 2 - ED Forums
 


Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 12-10-2017, 04:00 AM   #11
The LT
Member
 
The LT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Moscow, Russian Federation
Posts: 415
Send a message via ICQ to The LT
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MrSp33dy123 View Post
I think the reason people are complaining is that there are a limited number of third party developers who develop a limited number of planes each year (like 3 or 4 total), while the list of planes that people want (Tornados, F-4s, F-16s etc) is insanely large. Who asked for an obscure aerobatic biplane?
Pretty much this. Time is limited. Resources are limited. We better vote with our dollar so that the devs prioritize accordingly.
__________________
My controls & seat
Spoiler:
Main controls: , BRD-N v4 Flightstick (Kreml C5 controller), TM Warthog Throttle (Kreml F3 controller), BRD-F2 Restyling Bf-109 Pedals w. damper, TrackIR5, Gametrix KW-908 (integrated into RAV4 seat)

Stick grips:

Thrustmaster Warthog
Thrustmaster Cougar (x2)
Thrustmaster F-16 FLCS
BRD KG13

Standby controls:
BRD-M2 Mi-8 Pedals (Ruddermaster controller)
BRD-N v3 Flightstick w. exch. grip upgrade (Kreml C5 controller)
Thrustmaster Cougar Throttle

Pilot seat
The LT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-10-2017, 04:47 AM   #12
mvsgas
Veteran
 
mvsgas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Phoenix AZ
Posts: 7,168
Default

The best analogy is; this is Jar Jar Binks, Yak 52 is Phantom menace, ED is George Lucas. Some will love them, some will hate them but in the end George will make bank out them either way.
__________________
Quote:
The aircraft G-limits are only there in case there is another flight by that particular airplane. If subsequent flights do not appear likely, there are no G-limits.
Frank Chubba from the book Palace Cobra.

CPU=Intel Core I3 7320, Mo/Bo= ASRock B250 Gaming K4, Memory DDR42400 pc4-19200 16gb G.Skill Ripjaws V, video card=EVGA GTX 1060 SC, 6gb gddr 5, Joystick=Thrustmaster T-flight Stick X, Track IR, Win10 64
mvsgas is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-10-2017, 02:29 PM   #13
zhukov032186
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Location: Fort Worth, Tx
Posts: 920
Default

Guys, stop complaining about this. You have to keep some things in mind:

These military craft you all want modeled to super detail are expensive and time consuming to create. A-10C flight/systems model took three years to make. The F-18 took TWO YEARS of negotiations with the DoD. These are major drawn out ordeals that drain a lot of resources.

No one developer is apt to be able to handle more than one or two of them at a time, for starters. This isn't the sort of thing you can simply throw more code monkeys at and expect them to crap out Shakespeare.

If, by expanding into the "civilian market", which is much easier/cheaper/less headache to deal with (which most of these developers are ALREADY involved in for OTHER simulators, not to mention they may be able to pull some of their work over here, saving on time/resources they've already invested) we can only benefit, here's how :

If they start drawing some of the FSX/Xplane folks over here in larger number, they receive an influx of cash at no cost to you, giving them the very resources they need to create some of the aircraft on your wishlists. If you never see any of these people on a multiplayer server, or all they do is aerobatics, it doesn't COST YOU anything, but it DOES benefit you.

Think past the end of your nose, life is easier that way.
__________________
Whatever you need to be a cold, virtual killing machine Uncle Sam has you covered, and so do I! I'm Troy McClure, would I steer you wrong?
zhukov032186 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-10-2017, 03:23 PM   #14
Fri13
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 2,379
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by zhukov032186 View Post
If they start drawing some of the FSX/Xplane folks over here in larger number, they receive an influx of cash at no cost to you, giving them the very resources they need to create some of the aircraft on your wishlists. If you never see any of these people on a multiplayer server, or all they do is aerobatics, it doesn't COST YOU anything, but it DOES benefit you.

Think past the end of your nose, life is easier that way.
If ED wants money, like all of it, they need to do a three things:

Quote:
1) Start adding and supporting a civilian aircrafts, as well larger maps. Meaning that civilian virtual pilots can come and traffic people and cargo from airport A to airport B etc inside a country, as between multiple countries, so then there are reason for military aircrafts to do the patrolling and policing etc. Civilian pilots to avoid conflict areas/countries etc.

But one can already see the challenge if the map needs to be a half europe or so. Possible with civilian air as you fly high and anyways more realistically and really get low only at the airports. But still one could do the take-off and landing with smaller passenger aircrafts even in current Caucasus map.
Quote:
2) Get the Combined Arms module up and running. That so they can attract big chunk of the RTS gamers out there who loves games like "Wargame: Airland Battle" or the whole Wargame series all together by its cold war theme. Implement such simple camera and unit commanding system in DCS World units and mechanics and there would be lots of players to get their RTS experience going on at ground. https://youtu.be/DM5fLjmoE1I?t=145

Implement a more realistic communication system than there is now with instant knowledge, so that RTS gamers need to communicate with the military virtual pilots, gather their own intelligence and talk it to them. So it would be slower paced combat (closer to Close Combat game series https://youtu.be/3uJXWt_nwGs?t=423) instead fast paced like in Wargame.
So that means virtual pilots would have a someone with CA module commanding ground troops, doing their tactics and following their strategy, that virtual pilots are supporting and implementing by themselves too.

It would lead a 24/7 server where different registered players are given different troops in control and different tasks (that is already partially supported in DCS) so that everyone ain't commanding everyone and that way even RTS gamers need to learn to play together as larger group. So troops are not started to move without higher level approval as everyone is trying to get commands from top to down and complete them. Server virtual pilots would have fun time when required air supports schedules comes and it is time when they can't fly, but someone else get to do the fun sorties...
Quote:
3) SAM, EW, AWACS, GCI and ATCT implemented so that some players could get to operate a given positions with their limited capabilities. Communicate, report, deliver data to defense network, schedule landings, shoot at the enemies etc etc. Every single position could be fun. Like ATCT has the lists for take-offs and landings as expected, otherwise guide the air traffic around airport and operate the unscheduled aircrafts. Command the more common airfield services (repairs, emergency landings etc) and choose parking locations etc etc.
IMHO the RTS part would be most critical one, as it would give the access to ground troops as for the radar operations. Of course the radar operations could be a totally own module called even as "DCS: Radar Operator" or something if going so complex system.

But at this moment the games that has CA player with, are far more fun than just generic scripted missions. To time the attacks, to give the support and operate with ground troops is something totally different. Just like when you have a good AWACS or GCI that is guiding you to enemies etc, is more fun than flying alone blindly. But all requires a more realistic information network and its limitations. So if a ground troops recon force gets ambushed and engaged, that information doesn't arrive realtime to everyone else. Instead have the simulation for the radio calls to move between corresponding levels. So a any player can do mistakes and engage own troops. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L8-wr8_qRBQ

The AI should be better than now, so the RTS player can leave or jump to some other position (commanding officer) so the AI follows given orders, like routes, schedules etc at least on basic level, and informs up if there is something questionable so human player can come to check things.

And such would nicely work with a rumored tank module (as ED wanted more info about them) with improved terrain engine and so on.

That could as well attract players who like something like Steel Beasts or Steel Armor: Blaze of War.


Aircrafts like CE2 or such would be there too to attract some players. As not everyone want to do only combat sorties, but could be there to train flying with other ones.
That is just the sad limitation that DCS is focused to combat and not to compete with other civilian simulators.
Fri13 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-10-2017, 10:41 PM   #15
Moafuleum
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 108
Default

I don't understand the bashing at all tbh.

Except for completing the MiG-21, the developers are not in any duty to us customers at all. I'm sure, they considered all the pros and cons of a development of such an aircraft and came to the conclusion that the benefits overcome the drawbacks.
Furthermore, ED apparently approved and gave their OK for such a development. If the decision of the devs were right in terms of a financial ammortization is up to their business plan, which is not my business and up to you and me, which in turn, is our business.

For me, i will probably refuse to purchase it but i very much appreciate the fact, that it is not only seen as a pure selling cow but also as a test bed for upcoming WW2 aircraft.

The next thing is, that they said that the MiG has not been forgotten but will be improved and they are working on it. As a conclusion, this should be the only thing we should bother with, because the MiG is the only dept, the devs still have to pay and nothing else.
Moafuleum is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 12-10-2017, 11:24 PM   #16
Schmidtfire
Member
 
Schmidtfire's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 777
Default

I will buy this, looks like a lot of fun for more relaxed sessions

Thing is, It will probably do really well. I can see a lot of people buying this on Steam for their VR headset. The CEII will attract new players to DCS, and some of them are going to buy other modules down the line, like a Hornet or Tomcat. It is a win-win for everyone.

While I was hoping that M3's next aircraft would be something like a MiG, Id rather have small team developers focusing on smaller high quality passion projects and do them well.
Just the upkeep with patching "big titles" like DCS: MiG-21bis takes a lot of resources.

Leave the big and advanced titles to the bigger teams. I think M3 just might have found their own niché. Suprising aircrafts that will stir the pot a bit and bring something else to the table.

There are plenty of interesting aircrafts for both civilian and military use and it will be interesting too see where we are a couple of years from now. Maybe C-130's, An-2's, recon aircrafts, and even some GA aircrafts in the same airspace as our beloved fighter and attack aircrafts...

To me that sounds like a way more complete DCS World. Good luck on your release M3
Schmidtfire is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-11-2017, 03:58 AM   #17
mvsgas
Veteran
 
mvsgas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Phoenix AZ
Posts: 7,168
Default

ED need to go ahead and trade mark "Digital Simulator" as their main platform. Under it, we can have DCS, Digital Aerobatic Aircraft Simulator (DAAS)...hell they can bring them all in here, Truck Sim (DTS), Farmer Sim (DFS), Boat Sim (DBS), Space (DSS), What is the name of the sim with trucks driving in the Mud? We can call it DMS, M for Mud.
__________________
Quote:
The aircraft G-limits are only there in case there is another flight by that particular airplane. If subsequent flights do not appear likely, there are no G-limits.
Frank Chubba from the book Palace Cobra.

CPU=Intel Core I3 7320, Mo/Bo= ASRock B250 Gaming K4, Memory DDR42400 pc4-19200 16gb G.Skill Ripjaws V, video card=EVGA GTX 1060 SC, 6gb gddr 5, Joystick=Thrustmaster T-flight Stick X, Track IR, Win10 64
mvsgas is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-11-2017, 11:46 AM   #18
Boris
Senior Member
 
Boris's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Hamburg, Germany
Posts: 1,057
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MrSp33dy123 View Post
I think the reason people are complaining is that there are a limited number of third party developers who develop a limited number of planes each year (like 3 or 4 total), while the list of planes that people want (Tornados, F-4s, F-16s etc) is insanely large. Who asked for an obscure aerobatic biplane?
Honestly, if only one new plane come out a year, it would be more than enough to try and master

I'm absolutely fine with the CE2. Not super thrilled, but fine. I might even buy it.

In any case it's a testbed for the Corsair, which is still coming out, so nothing lost there. So I don't see the problem people have.
Is it because the Corsair is perceived as "delayed" now? Modules get delayed so often in DCS people should be used to it by now...
__________________
PC Specs / Hardware: MSI z370 Gaming Plus Mainboard, Intel 8700k clocked to 5GHz, MSI 1080 Ti 11G, 32GB 3200 MHz DDR4 RAM
Displays: Philips BDM4065UC 60Hz 4K UHD Screen, Oculus Rift CV1
Controllers / Peripherals: VPC MongoosT-50, Thrustmaster Warthog HOTAS, modded MS FFB2/CH Combatstick, MFG Crosswind Pedals, Gametrix JetSeat
OS: Windows 10 Home Creator's Update
Boris is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-12-2017, 07:25 PM   #19
aileron
Member
 
Join Date: May 2015
Location: California, USA
Posts: 236
Default

Just want to know when the development shots start coming out.
aileron is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-13-2017, 03:19 AM   #20
-Rudel-
3rd Party Developer
 
-Rudel-'s Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Dean Martin Celebrity Roasts
Posts: 1,121
Default

They would have been out a long time ago, if the 2/3 decision was in my favor :p
__________________
http://www.leatherneck-sim.com/
https://www.facebook.com/leathernecksim

i9 7980XE, 128GB Ram, SLI GTX Titan Xp, Win10 Pro, SSD, 2 x 256GB SSD, 4 x 512GB SSD RAID 0
i7 4960X, 64GB Ram, GTX Titan, Win10 Pro, 512GB PCIe SSD, 2 x 256GB SSD, 6 x 4TB HDD RAID 6, 9361-8i RAID Controller
i7 2600K, 16GB Ram, GTX 580, Win10 Pro, 240GB SSD, 3 x 4TB HDD
Pentium 4, 2GB Ram, GeForce 6800 Ultra, WinXp Pro, 3 x 500GB HDD
-Rudel- is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

All times are GMT. The time now is 07:16 PM. vBulletin Skin by ForumMonkeys. Powered by vBulletin®.
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.