Does DCS have the right focus?

Thanks a lot .. really, really interesting information, from those people who actually know how this business works :)

Indeed it was, thanks David for posting. :thumbup:

Wow, that was a ton of replies! Good points from all of you.

Here is a good old forum post by EvilBivol-1 (TFC Associate)

 

The Parable of Jane's A-10 and Flight Sim Development

Thanks, very illustrating. Interesting to find it wasn't just my own relation to simulation products as a customer but a wider through of the simulation market. What has changed things a lot for DCS is the large online community, YouTube, and some abundance of multiplayer groups. (Maybe not easily visible in the server browser if they use private servers.) Learning and leveraging the simulator content is much easier than when it was just you, the machine and the manual.

It's fundamental to understand how ED/DCS differs from your regular gaming product. For one thing ED seems to spread its development effort thin and wide to multiple teams instead of focused development, things like the Hornet being a rare exception. Development cycles are long as a result but ED also thinks long term in subjects like life cycles etc. The military side is just as peculiar because very likely ED practices human resource balancing between the military and consumer sides. So what appears as ED's emphasis on given feature sets or release schedules may actually be out of ED's hands on a large scale.

Also, at least some players seemed to have a very good grip on what was coming in 5-10 years. ED's strategy and focus have changed at least twice during the period.

I'm with you on explosions 2.1! I've come back after a 3 year break and thought WTF was that after my first ground target exploded throwing debris up in the air...

I seem to recall when the update dropped that explosions were even better than now but I think they got scaled back for performance reasons. Anyone remember that or am I just crazy?

For DCS in its current state aircraft like like the F14, the Hornet and Harrier are the best option to get the most from what DCS world has to offer IMO. Now I’m an aviation enthusiast and by that I mean I love all aviation, and have loved flight sims since the early 90s. So I love WWI air combat WWII and modern air combat. I accept that for WWII DCS probably isn’t the best platform for a combat simulation, that being said if I want a simulation that will offer me the most realistic experience available then for me DCS is the place to go. I’m not saying that because I can fly a spitfire well in DCS world means I would be an exceptional pilot in the real thing, but I think ultimately we all strive for realism, it’s what simulation has always been about and I love being able to manage all the systems in the aeroplane. I think DCS WWII has potential, and I was a backer from the start. Personally I’ve always loved Spitfires and absolutely love that simulation in DCS, and nothing else has the level of detail of the DCS modules. So one day I hope that everything else can catch up, the Normandy map is good but I think it still needs work, I feel the colours need work particularly with the VR situation, (In fact all VR needs some TLC in DCS). I also feel a huge turning point for DCS WWII will be the damage modelling which is so important for a WWII sim and then some single player missions and more a.i units. So going back to the direction DCS is going, I feel at the moment it’s best suited for modern air combat but i think it has the potential to be the best platform for everything I really do, but it’s going to take a lot of work and time.

I agree. Although many tell me that the other WW2 sim is better I personally find it hard to drag myself away from DCS and play that game instead, because after flying the DCS world war 2 modules nothing else comes close. Spitfire especially. Once the damage models and a few performance optimization’s land (although motion smoothing on the vive has been incredible to that end) it will in my opinion be the king of WW2 flight sim. Defi going in the right direction, but I already love it!

 

It's fundamental to understand how ED/DCS differs from your regular gaming product. For one thing ED seems to spread its development effort thin and wide to multiple teams instead of focused development, things like the Hornet being a rare exception.

I'll just add,

To get this level we have in DCS, takes a good close nit team of coders/engineers, like I said in my last post. Many talk about how sometimes ED spreads its development effort thin and are not focused.

They have rebuild the whole sim engine... Looks pretty good too.;)

I believe it's more about keeping the same coders/engineers/Graphic guy's and girls working on the same project and let them just be...

It's generally not good or faster to add more to the mix, when the team would be deep deep into code. Then just to stop all of a sudden and teach another two coders where there at and the bugs they are facing? That would take many man hours just to get them up to speed to help.

Same with the hornet, it's the same engineers that are just moving along to different parts, same coders/engineers that are deeply familiar with the hornet. I'm also guessing that's how all the other DCS modules where done, only this time we are along for the ride as it updates.

What exactly is this (instead of focused development and rare exception) coming from, if you don't mind me asking.

Like I said before, ED is not some aaa major publisher. It's a good close team of coders/engineers that are passionate about flight simulation. If you did read the link I posted then you should realize why ED and the team are around today.

Even today there is nothing on the consumer flight sim market that comes even close to the depth of modeling (Systems and Flight Model) of the DCS A-10C (2011)

Edit: I'll just add this here too:)

DCS has no focus, just content spread all over.

It's pretty hardcore sim though

The problem with this type of armchair-analysis, is that us customer dont have any real fact about DCS: we dont know how large is the user base, we dont know how many of those do go into Multiplayer with regularity, we dont know how may are interested on WW2, we dont know how is the user-share of the available Maps, we dont know almost anything, so these analysis are kind of pointless.

 

In the end, I don't care much for trying to convince ED to do this or that, as I trust that they have enough real data to make informed decisions on what should be the focus of DCS going forward.

Technically, we as paying customers have the best data available: we have first level insight into what product features would be really interesting. ED only arrives at this information via observation and inference.

For the points you make - yes we perhaps don't have the same quality of information as ED does - except in maybe some points like how many people actually go to multiplayer and so. However for pretty much everything you list there is public data available which can allow us to establish the ballpark if required, or such data could be gathered. There was recently someone who counted how many forum posts each aircraft has, giving us some figures to infer aircraft popularity (eg. Viggen very high, Mig-15 surprisingly low). ED has has also shared some insights like Wags commenting that the WW2 modules are some of the best selling ones.

I find that most opinions are based on just personal beliefs, for example I'm not so sure that discounting the Maps would bring in new players ... there is already a free Map so that new players can try DCS .. what would be the point of discounting the rest of the Maps? I'd rather prefer that DCS is able to recover the development cost of the Maps, so that they can invest in create more maps.

Oh yes there is a subjective component - when discussing DCS features every one of us tends to look between his own two butt cheeks and loves what he finds there - somebody wants to play individual infantrymen in FPS, somebody else would be just happy if they could buy more additional skins and so on.

My argument avoids this problem because the structure is much more sophisticated: It interprets a real strategic pattern that is based on the current capabilities of the DCS platform and its opportunities in the multiplayer game market. I listed some alternative focus areas but at the core what I'm here interested in is a set of features which have synergy between each other and in relation to the flight simulation components. There is the possibility of developing a coherent and a highly attractive player experience.

To get this level we have in DCS, takes a good close nit team of coders/engineers, like I said in my last post. Many talk about how sometimes ED spreads its development effort thin and are not focused.

 

They have rebuild the whole sim engine... Looks pretty good too.;)

 

I believe it's more about keeping the same coders/engineers/Graphic guy's and girls working on the same project and let them just be...

 

It's generally not good or faster to add more to the mix, when the team would be deep deep into code. Then just to stop all of a sudden and teach another two coders where there at and the bugs they are facing? That would take many man hours just to get them up to speed to help.

 

Same with the hornet, it's the same engineers that are just moving along to different parts, same coders/engineers that are deeply familiar with the hornet. I'm also guessing that's how all the other DCS modules where done, only this time we are along for the ride as it updates.

 

What exactly is this (instead of focused development and rare exception) coming from, if you don't mind me asking.

What you are talking above is exactly the non-focused, or should I rather say, dispersed model of development or developer resource allocation that ED is utilizing. And one should not confuse this with the possible lack of focus in ED's product feature strategy (the core subject of the thread). They are basically two different (if not always entirely separate) discussions.

And this is not actually a point of criticism. The development model makes sense for exactly the reasons you list above and may very well be the key component in ED's successful strategy to make a competitive flight simulation platform without charging us hundreds of bucks for every module or without falling too far behind the competition in the long run.

However with regard to the product, in my eye, would need is a stronger focus on the value chain of the following core engine features (platform improvements):

Dynamic campaign

Combined Arms

RTS user interface improvements

Content creation tools (mission editor, SDK)

Multiplayer functionality

Now all of these are in the ED roadmap but what we are getting down the road may just be too little too late if they are not seen as core areas in DCS. Especially Combined Arms looks very problematic at the moment - there are missing features and user experience is far from great, yet the module is priced similar to the aircraft, almost all of which can deliver to the paying customer. There is little indication where and how far ED intends to go with this area. At the same time making great progress would need intensive upgrades to the DCS engine, implying that rounding out the DCS platform in the fashion it has been waiting for 7 years would come with a high development cost.

RTS and user interface elements are a focal pain area - it looks like ED is aware of this because they have recruited RTS specialist(s) and Nineline is hunting for the desirable requirements in this area. Also the Dynamic campaign sounds like it could be a really big feature in ED's mind, but it's probably the item that has the least development actually done in the list above. An editor upgrade at least is going to arrive at some point, but while there is a good possibility for user created content the platform is far from the greatest for that. Multiplayer is one great way to make use of all these improvements - the dedicated server can already start a landslide but the area needs to push beyond releasing just a single upgrade.

Like I said before, ED is not some aaa major publisher. It's a good close team of coders/engineers that are passionate about flight simulation. If you did read the link I posted then you should realize why ED and the team are around today.

 

Even today there is nothing on the consumer flight sim market that comes even close to the depth of modeling (Systems and Flight Model) of the DCS A-10C (2011)

ED is not exactly some small indie studio either. There are a bit over 100 developers (?) in the DCS ecosystem and actually they are often not that close but are separated into different companies, subsidiaries, teams etc not to mention different countries and continents. It requires some pretty good orchestration to keep this machine moving forward in a sensible fashion - I think also the Russian culture comes into play and a western organization with the same goals wouldn't be able to pull it off in the exact same fashion. In some ways it is still a learning experience for ED, eg. also the current focus still involves some lessons to be learned on how to mentor the 3rd party developers and how to manage the partnership.

However with regard to the product, in my eye, would need is a stronger focus on the value chain of the following core engine features (platform improvements):

 

Dynamic campaign

Combined Arms

RTS user interface improvements

Content creation tools (mission editor, SDK)

Multiplayer functionality

As I said before, I'd also really like a dynamic campaign and some more gameplay / roleplaying in DCS, kind of like in Falcon 3.0 in the good old days...

But:

- Implementing these things would not bring additional money to ED because of the business model. Players, old and new, pay money for modules, not for the game itself. So it makes more sense to develop modules / maps in which the existing user base may be interested rather than improve the core engine. Expanding into General Aviation for instance may increase the user base dramatically, while such modules could also sell reasonably well among the existing users.

- ED always made games like DCS is at the moment. The original Flanker (1996) was in many things quite similar: great flight model, deep system modelling, maximum realism, extensive mission editor. It's interesting to read this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Su-27_Flanker_(video_game) because many of the comments the press made about Flanker, can be directly applied to DCS as well.

Finally, when we return to the topic of focus, if I had to chose between Falcon 3.0 gameplay and Flanker 1.0 realism, I would go for the Flanker. So, yes, for me, DCS does have the right focus.

It misses a dynamic engine.

Heck, I never played a single campaign and I likely never will. Dynamic or not at all.

2nd. The constant "will come soon" let's me feel like a donkey with some hey in a bag in front of his mouth. It leaves a bad taste the longer I have to wait.

my 2 honest cents

There is no "right focus" as an absolute meaning. There is the focus you'd expect.

What I don't like (aka don't see as "right focus"):

seeing new contents ( maps, modules, terrains, scripted campaigns ) with the core features ( rendering and multi core optimization, audio, weather, atc, multiplayer optimization, mission editor, ancient bugs, ecc ) taxing ( =very slow development ) for years.

Also I don't like that, when someone raises the request for better and polished sim core, the answer is often "hell you get DCS for free and dare to complain"?

Well yes, because I never asked a free of charge simulator! Some features are very, very important and missing/lacking and I would surely pay for those.

In other words, what I see a "wrong focus" is the business model applied to DCS. But hey, I don't run a simulation software company, they've surely made their math before taking this path.

That said, I really enjoy the sim, there's no other product in the market that can match DCS in the field of modern air combat simulation :thumbup:

There is no "right focus" as an absolute meaning. There is the focus you'd expect.

 

What I don't like (aka don't see as "right focus"):

seeing new contents ( maps, modules, terrains, scripted campaigns ) with the core features ( rendering and multi core optimization, audio, weather, atc, multiplayer optimization, mission editor, ancient bugs, ecc ) taxing ( =very slow development ) for years.

 

Also I don't like that, when someone raises the request for better and polished sim core, the answer is often "hell you get DCS for free and dare to complain"?

 

Well yes, because I never asked a free of charge simulator! Some features are very, very important and missing/lacking and I would surely pay for those.

 

In other words, what I see a "wrong focus" is the business model applied to DCS. But hey, I don't run a simulation software company, they've surely made their math before taking this path.

 

That said, I really enjoy the sim, there's no other product in the market that can match DCS in the field of modern air combat simulation :thumbup:

OttoPus,

I posted here on the 2nd page with links as to why ED does it the way they do, so they too can enjoy working on a combat flight sims for the foreseeable future (consumer civil side anyway).

Good points and it's all the items that ED wants to work on I believe.

The show must go on tho right. So people are working on ( maps, modules, terrains, scripted campaigns ) The Coders/ENGINEERS are working on the core which takes years and years to mature.

DCS is looking awesome and the future is looking quite good right....;)

Technically, we as paying customers have the best data available: we have first level insight into what product features would be really interesting. ED only arrives at this information via observation and inference.

 

However with regard to the product, in my eye, would need is a stronger focus on the value chain of the following core engine features (platform improvements):

 

Dynamic campaign

Combined Arms

RTS user interface improvements

Content creation tools (mission editor, SDK)

Multiplayer functionality

 

Now all of these are in the ED roadmap but what we are getting down the road may just be too little too late if they are not seen as core areas in DCS. Especially Combined Arms looks very problematic at the moment - there are missing features and user experience is far from great, yet the module is priced similar to the aircraft, almost all of which can deliver to the paying customer. There is little indication where and how far ED intends to go with this area. At the same time making great progress would need intensive upgrades to the DCS engine, implying that rounding out the DCS platform in the fashion it has been waiting for 7 years would come with a high development cost.

 

"may just be too little too late"

Not too late, no one is out there to do it. Where else are we going to fly combat and do case 1 in VR version 2,3,4 at 1080p, 1440P, 4K?:) VR tech is also taking to long....

Combined Arms needs some work yep, ED's focus is still on the the flight sim side first(always). Combined Arms at the start was just a cool thing to play around with the ground forces while flying, like you said ED hasn't push on with it. I don't think it will take as long as you might think to fix it up and make it cool, it still won't be a full on land battle sim like steel beasts, which is another sim company that also caters to the military to keep the lights on.

I'll just end with that from my eye's ED is real turning up the heat now on the consumer side on all the things you have listed above and is in a very good position moving forward. I believe things will and are happening much quicker and I'm really interested to see what happens in 2019.

Yeah, there is a lot to be tapped into there with CA, and more to come as it develops.

DCS is looking awesome and the future is looking quite good right....;)

DCS future is bright indeed :joystick::pilotfly: