Jump to content

ED, tell us where DCS is going (are we just customers, or friends?)


dali

Recommended Posts

The difference between DCS and MSFS is night and day. DCS core is free and regularly updated, they work and release their own modules to a high standard whereas Microsoft sell you the core product and that's it. Take FS2004 shipped with very basic aircraft, ATC and weather, to get the realism of DCS in FS you have to go to people like LevelD or PMDG etc. Microsoft rely on the modding community after initial release a lot more than DCS. That's not to say its not a good thing in DCS but like I say its regularly updated and new modules released, how many updates and new aircraft were added to FS2004 or even FSX after initial release by Microsoft?

AMD 5800X, 64GB Corsair Vengeance Pro, AMD 6900xt, Windows 11, Quest 3.

F15E, AH-64, F/A18C, F-14, Super Carrier, F-16C, UH-1H, SA342, AV-8B, FW190, C101, F-15C, Mi8MTV2, SU-33, SU-27, M-2000C, AJS-37, KA-50, L-39, Yak-52, F-5E, F-86F, Spitfire, Persian Gulf, Normandy, NTTR.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The actual modders comunity has builded mods as A-4C and others very good mods with the actual DCS "open" features, That dont need the SDK.

 

If someone like build anything more profesional, only need contact with ED team and present a module project, to convert them on a licensing 3rd party.

Or mod like the mb-333. I hope other companies like heatblur razbam etc have these SDKs, right? I think ED is jealous of these things. I understand the discussion on safety and quality of the modules but honestly it seems obvious to me that there is an earnings mentality behind these decisions. If everyone was free to edit and create the sim as they please i think maps and many bugs would be made and fixed. I take up the request of dali and ask for a little bit more freedom and support for the modders.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • ED Team
Or mod like the mb-333. I hope other companies like heatblur razbam etc have these SDKs, right? I think ED is jealous of these things. I understand the discussion on safety and quality of the modules but honestly it seems obvious to me that there is an earnings mentality behind these decisions. If everyone was free to edit and create the sim as they please i think maps and many bugs would be made and fixed. I take up the request of dali and ask for a little bit more freedom and support for the modders.

 

Anyone can get access to the SDKs, they only need to apply for 3rd Party status, I am not even sure what we would be jealous of, we would love more 3rd Party teams, and not just for modules, but for terrains and such.

 

Remember, DCS World is an actively developed piece of software by a company that still needs to make a profit. To just give away everything and take away the means to make money on DCS World would not make much financial sense for ED.

64Sig.png
Forum RulesMy YouTube • My Discord - NineLine#0440• **How to Report a Bug**

1146563203_makefg(6).png.82dab0a01be3a361522f3fff75916ba4.png  80141746_makefg(1).png.6fa028f2fe35222644e87c786da1fabb.png  28661714_makefg(2).png.b3816386a8f83b0cceab6cb43ae2477e.png  389390805_makefg(3).png.bca83a238dd2aaf235ea3ce2873b55bc.png  216757889_makefg(4).png.35cb826069cdae5c1a164a94deaff377.png  1359338181_makefg(5).png.e6135dea01fa097e5d841ee5fb3c2dc5.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If everyone was free to edit and create the sim as they please i think maps and many bugs would be made and fixed. I take up the request of dali and ask for a little bit more freedom and support for the modders.

No, you would get a gigantic pile of mods of which most will be badly supported over time. Which in turn reduces the overall quality and fidelity of DCS.

 

You just want free stuff, so it seems.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

SDK access is not a barrier. It's a marketable standard. There is a reason you dont see the A4 or MBB finishing radios, doing campaigns, polishing docs, doing switches and keybinds, giving added extras, they simply dont have to because they set their own requirements. The consumer is protected by those standards, and thus as a consumer, I much prefer the odd scandal of VEAO getting binned and the quality being something we can "demand", over a complete free-for-all.

 

.

 

Oh no It is NOT, the A-4 and MBB are Mods because of LICINSING and Profit limitation issues.

 

Actually they are missing every feature you name BECAUSE they don´t have access to the SDK.

 

Both MODS were more feature complete than ANY early access from ED, so mesure your words.

 

There are plenty of mods out there that do not adhere the DCS quality standard. But the two you mention are not precisely IT.

 

 

I am not saying that the SDK should be given freely, that would be nuts and financial suicide.

 

Still, maybe in exceptional cases, there should be some leniency or assistance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Both MODS were more feature complete than ANY early access from ED, so mesure your words.

 

 

Umm....I'm not sure comparing the A-4 or MBB to F-18/F-16 is applicable considering the vast difference in systems. Saying feature complete is a little misleading. So I would suggest you use your own advice and measure your words more carefully.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

played arma, skyrim, all these highly modded games, and i can say for sure that modders have some of the most overinflated egos

it doesnt help that they get praised to high heaven because you have this fine self-compounding effect where the modders threaten to pull the plug when their feefees get hurt and so the sycophantic userbase is scared to death that their free handouts are gonna get taken away

 

at the end of the day modded content is bad. they cause problems and they have low quality standards. even the most well-constructed mod does not come close to matching a professional production. i honestly could not give any less of a rat's wet fart if they ceased to exist.


Edited by probad
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's not true, you are just building a strawman. Official DCS would still be highly curated. You would still not be able to join MP with modded content in your game.

 

You would not see any low quality mod, or any other mod if you decide not to dig through mod library. The game would stay exactly the same as it is right now.

Well. In essence that's true, ofc.

 

It's just because people seem to think DCS modules are expensive (just look at how many wanted, almost demanded, to get the supercarrier for free. Or just the SC ATC. Or just the deck crew. Or just ...), they want mods. And in that regard the argument of giving modders access to the SDK is just some kind of subterfuge. At least, in my humble opinion. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ED, tell us where DCS is going (are we just customers, or friends?)

I just have to ask it. What's your title about? Anything more than a leading question? How often do you pay your friends for a service? How can a company survive with friends and without customers? You can't be serious. :huh:

A-10A, A-10C, A-10C II, AV-8B, F-5E, F-16C, F/A-18C, F-86F, Yak-52, Nevada, Persian Gulf, Syria, Supercarrier, Combined Arms, FW 190 A-8, FW 190 D-9, Spitfire LF Mk. IX, Normandy + WWII Assets Pack

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some updates are going to break mods. They also break modules, maps, campaigns, etc.

 

This is the way it is.

 

Accept it and move on.

 

This! Changes in the core program will often lead to necessary changes in the mods, modules, maps, campains and so on. We have to accept it or stay on the same DCS version for ever. That's evolution. Keep the pace or share the destiny of the dinosaurs. :smartass:

A-10A, A-10C, A-10C II, AV-8B, F-5E, F-16C, F/A-18C, F-86F, Yak-52, Nevada, Persian Gulf, Syria, Supercarrier, Combined Arms, FW 190 A-8, FW 190 D-9, Spitfire LF Mk. IX, Normandy + WWII Assets Pack

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Still waiting of the example of a game which was destroyed by mods.... or one where the developers made less profit because of them.

F-14B, A-10C,F-18C Lot 20, F-16C, UH-1H, SA342, Spitfire LF Mk IX, F-15C, Mig-29, Supercarrier, Nevada, Persian Gulf

 

i9 9900k 5.0GHz, 32GB RAM, 1080Ti, Rift S, Warthog HOTAS, MFG Crosswind pedals, Dual Monitors 4K & 1080

 

Every Day, Someone Uses Cute Krispy Snacks

 

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]
Link to comment
Share on other sites

ED, tell us where DCS is going (are we just customers, or friends?)

I just have to ask it. What's your title about? Anything more than a leading question? How often do you pay your friends for a service? How can a company survive with friends and without customers? You can't be serious. :huh:

 

friends in a sense that it is not pure I pay - you deliver relationship. ED has partially answered this already wiht open beta and early access programs. Question is is this going to be applied to modding comunity in future as well?

The bottom line question should actualy be - is the incompatibility of mods with every new version on purpose? Is ED trying to get rid of modding communitiy? Just asking, not implying anything.

 

Of course - the core should be bullet proof, noboy wants swiss cheese code, especialy for MP.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have flown "mod" planes that exceed payware quality. One is Manfred Jahn, Jan Visser DC3/C-47. So modding isn't all bad.

Maybe ED could consider a "SDK Light version"?

Supercarrier | Flaming Cliffs 3 | M-2000C | AJS-37 Viggen| MIG-21Bis | L-39 Albatros | Yak-52 | Spitfire LF MK IX | Mig-15Bis | Mig-19P Farmer | P-51D Mustang | F/A-18 | F-14 | F-5E Tiger II | C-101 Aviojet | I-16 | UH-1H Huey | Mil MI-8tv2 | Sa 342M Gazelle | Combined Arms | NS-430 Navigation System | NEVADA | Persian Gulf | Normandy1944 | World war II assets pack | Black Shark 2 | F-5E Agressors ACM campaign |F-5E Agressors BFM Campaign | L-39 Albatros Kursant Campaign | DCS:Syria

Link to comment
Share on other sites

friends in a sense that it is not pure I pay - you deliver relationship. ED has partially answered this already wiht open beta and early access programs. Question is is this going to be applied to modding comunity in future as well?

The bottom line question should actualy be - is the incompatibility of mods with every new version on purpose? Is ED trying to get rid of modding communitiy? Just asking, not implying anything.

 

Of course - the core should be bullet proof, noboy wants swiss cheese code, especialy for MP.

 

 

Your bottom line question leaves me confused as to way are you even asking it unless DCS is the only modern game/sim you have played in the last decade. The times when games were hardly updated and the code pretty much stayed the same are a thing of the past. Most new games are updated on a regular basis. Even games like the Sims 4 which has a huge modding community is constantly updated to the point of breaking mods. This leaves only the best modders around that stay on top of things with updates to their own mods. Some of the best mods I have seen automatically detect a change in the version of the game when its stated and it generates a message saying that an update is necessary. It even goes as far as linking you to the site for the update.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is absolutely frustrating is the fact, that after almost every .x.y update mods stop working.

What else would you expect? These are mods

ED can’t have the extra burden to account for these in development, their job is hard enough. Updating them is the responsibility of the mod maker.

i9-13900K @ 6.2GHz oc | ASUS ROG MAXIMUS Z790 HERO | 64GB DDR5 5600MHz | iCUE H150i Liquid CPU Cooler | 24GB GeForce RTX 4090 | Windows 11 Home | 2TB Samsung 980 PRO NVMe | Corsair RM1000x | LG 48GQ900-B 4K OLED Monitor | CH Fighterstick | Ch Pro Throttle | CH Pro Pedals | TrackIR 5

Link to comment
Share on other sites

there is a thread asking for release of SDK. I wouldn't go so far, as many correctly noted, this would open gates to hacking and misuse.

 

What is absolutely frustrating is the fact, that after almost every .x.y update mods stop working.

 

ED, please tell us, are we just customers and should just swallow what you cook, or you consider us partners, as many people from the DCS community are contributing with their mods, skins and missions greatly.

 

We would like to know why mods are broken almost every time you make new .x.y version of DCS, is it on purpuse or is there a systematic approach to support modding in sight? Just look at Flight Simulator series - for the last 12 years as it was abandoned by Microsoft it was kept alive by vast number of contributors, both payware and freeware.

 

Is there a hope, you will finaly release a version, which will be stabile in terms of modding content, or we will see more of disregard of modding community?

 

DCS and many parts of it are in constant development i.e. in constant beta. Many modules are unfinished for years. We took that on board, we swallowed early access in order to support you. I personally own many modules just out of support, I rarely fly them.

 

But at the same time I feel sorry for people, who are making great add-ons for free, and they see them not working after updates. That is frustrating both for them and for us, the users, or customers, call us whatever you like.

 

As one of the posters in that SDK thread pointed out - modders are working in line with ED, not against it!

 

Lol this is ridiculous

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Op, it's nobody's problem but yours if you choose to use mods. It is not the devs responsibility to maintain compatability nor is it feasible. Do you want improved AI, weather, lighting, sound, etc or not? A dynamic campaign and improved textures? Those things are fundamental changes to the game that alter the basic way things work. They WILL break mods using or relying on the old systems. Period.

 

If you don't want that, then reduce the frequency of updates, nobody put a gun to your head and forced you to mash that button. Only update when there's something worth the hassle or after mods have had a chance to adjust. This applies to EVERY game, patch day is always a crapshoot.

 

Lastly, you're on the test branch. Things are EXPECTED to break. If you aren't willing to deal with that, don't use it. Again, nobody else's problem. This is what it's for.

 

''Customers or friends'' jeez, what a dramatic entitled notion. Their business model stems from selling new modules. They don't WANT you producing high quality free stuff, even if such was possible (and 90% of people it's not). It's basic math and asking ''why'' is just a display of ignorance.

 

And, even if they DID provide the SDK.... It doesn't change the fact core engine changes break mods. That isn't gonna magically not happen if the mods are 10x as complicated, if anything it will increase in frequency and be harder to track down. And again it's NOT THEIR PROBLEM.

 

The SDK isn't a magic fix for self inflicted problems. And while we're on the topic of magic bullets Vulkan isn't going to give you 500% FPA either. These ''white knights'' thinking they're going to get free planes ''if only'' are freaking ridiculous.


Edited by zhukov032186

Де вороги, знайдуться козаки їх перемогти.

5800x3d * 3090 * 64gb * Reverb G2

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe it is exaggerated, but where is the line? :)

 

Mission is just a bunch of scripts and initiation files packed inside a container. You can literally open text editor of choice and start writing a mission. If ED did not provide GUI in form of mission editor or a document how to write these files, it would be impossible to make a mission.

 

That's very similar to how terrain creation would work. It's impossible to create a map because you do not have documentation how to write it or GUI. Once you have a GUI, it's "simple" (ok, learning curve is significantly steeper, but even for mission editor we have now it's not easy to create advanced mission) to create things which would be translated to a bunch files and packed into a map package.

 

So, in my opinion a mission is mod as much as a map would be.

Oh come on, don't stretch the argument. There's a difference between building a mission with the ME provided with DCS, or obtaining accurate information, designing, coding, building, testing, and implementing a complex mod and then maintain it. At the very least you need additional software and specific knowledge for that. You don't when building a mission.

 

:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's this thing called Release version which is the one we're all suppose to use, so the argument of "mods get outdated so quick" loses some of it's credibility because you're not suppose to expect mods working on OB and I'm certain it's a policy but i'm not 100% sure, and OB is purposelly updated at a faster rate.

 

Adding stable mod support would be a large undertaking with I don't even know what kind of coding and infrastructure support, tools to check mods, and a totally different development style which would affect how things move forward, I mean, it would be like developing an OS.

 

So are you serious you want to put that kind of a strain on the studio and slow down development of core upgrades, Vulkan based graphics engine, new ATC, and oh so many things?

 

 

IMO, a step in right direction would be to enable a mission creator to model a 3d asset in blender (freeware and opensource), texture it in GIMP (freeware and opensource), place it onto a map as a static object via mission editor so that model become part of the mission itself.

 

Well no, because, what is DCS, is it Unity or Unreal Engine 4, it is not, it has no any of the infrastructure support, legal documentation for users at large, etc etc, and that may be possible, but it would take effort, and I rather have Vulkan API rather than 3 months of more mod support.

 

This could be overblown, I'd say most of the time mods aren't broken such that they need a rewrite, but need just a small adjustment or addition.

 

So it's a question of how much mods one has time for, where is this idea coming from that mods have to stay working for years and you can churn out unlimited numbers of them.

 

Don't get me wrong, I'm modder my self, but I never took it for granted, maintenance was part of it as per usual. You maintain your health as well, do you eat once per month and you're done, do you wash clothes once per 3 months? Life requires maintenance.

 

But the final (in this session ;)) question is, do your mod fans value the patch more than they do your mod? If the mod is worth enough to them, they won't update.


Edited by Worrazen

Modules: A-10C I/II, F/A-18C, Mig-21Bis, M-2000C, AJS-37, Spitfire LF Mk. IX, P-47, FC3, SC, CA, WW2AP, CE2. Terrains: NTTR, Normandy, Persian Gulf, Syria

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...