World + Modules + CA + Release

Couple things I would like to comment on.

First up: World. This is a genius idea, and I am very excited to have all DCS games past present and future in one client. Will make multiplayer alot more interesting with more roles becoming available as well (which is already amazing in the beta with the Mustang and A-10, can't fly KA-50 due to upgrade key dealio)

Second: I worry about the future modules. I can't help but thinking that the quality of aircraft coming will be severely reduced. I for one started using DCS products because of their unrivaled realism and flight models. Third parties may not get the military contracts and all the small details about aircraft correct. DCS A-10 was such a hit because ED worked closely with the US Military. Some of these third parties are coming from FSX which is nothing comparable to DCS.

Third and Forth: Where is this June patch/release of CA beta? It is July, and I haven't seen any posts at all on the status. If something is taking a bit longer, I would like to stay informed rather than left in the dark pressing F5 every hour.

Sorry for it being a bit of a rant. Fly safe :pilotfly:

Posted 6-27-2012

While still possible, I would doubt it at this point. There are still some significant bugs to resolve that are taking far longer to fix than we expected when the press release was made. As always, release dates are always a best estimate, and sometimes factors like testing do not cooperate.

 

Thanks

http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=1492039&postcount=185

This information needs to be posted in their " Official Updates " Section. Not deep within a thread.

Just the messenger here. ;)

I know:thumbup: I just want to make sure ED doesn't end up in the same situation that CCP ended up. (Pissing off their entire fanbase) :doh:

 

Second: I worry about the future modules. I can't help but thinking that the quality of aircraft coming will be severely reduced. I for one started using DCS products because of their unrivaled realism and flight models. Third parties may not get the military contracts and all the small details about aircraft correct. DCS A-10 was such a hit because ED worked closely with the US Military. Some of these third parties are coming from FSX which is nothing comparable to DCS.

Let's give them a chance :)

The distinction between third-party DCS-brand products and non-DCS-brand products aside, by now the third party devs know well enough of the standard the Community expects from products to our genre. Consequently they know well enough that they stand to be crucified if standards are not met. I'm no developer, but I'd definitely keep that in mind and the end-product will reflect that. That said, Time will Tell: It's next to useless to voice concern now over what 'might' happen. One cannot even compare prior conduct as there is nothing to compare it with. The release of the Mig-21 will be a benchmark of sorts, but even that is speculative at this stage (not the release, but the fidelity).

Let's all save the Pitchforks for when there is actually something to Poke :devil_2:

And if you don't like the fidelity, no one is forcing you to buy, or fly with those modules. :)

Couple things I would like to comment on.

 

First up: World. This is a genius idea, and I am very excited to have all DCS games past present and future in one client. Will make multiplayer alot more interesting with more roles becoming available as well (which is already amazing in the beta with the Mustang and A-10, can't fly KA-50 due to upgrade key dealio)

 

Second: I worry about the future modules. I can't help but thinking that the quality of aircraft coming will be severely reduced. I for one started using DCS products because of their unrivaled realism and flight models. Third parties may not get the military contracts and all the small details about aircraft correct. DCS A-10 was such a hit because ED worked closely with the US Military. Some of these third parties are coming from FSX which is nothing comparable to DCS.

 

Third and Forth: Where is this June patch/release of CA beta? It is July, and I haven't seen any posts at all on the status. If something is taking a bit longer, I would like to stay informed rather than left in the dark pressing F5 every hour.

 

Sorry for it being a bit of a rant. Fly safe :pilotfly:

I understand your argumentation in the second point, but I think this is an issue which we all won't get rid of unless you close DCS again to 3rd party devs and only allow ED to implement their developments ...

...and thats exactly the opposite way which DCS wants to go!!

the idea of opening the Sim to 3rd party devs is absolutley the right way to go , and via the DCSW basic module they found a nice way to easily plug future modules onto.

Yes, the quality will vary , but:

1. I think ED will keep their hands on checking upcoming developments to fulfill a certain "minimum" and compability standard

2. I woundnt basically say 3rd party devs implements lower quality cause of lacking information. the whole DCS community is a large and great one, where much of exchange is taking place, also in terms of flight data, research data etc...

if you watch the actual ongoing development process of making the L39 flyable for example, one really has to notice how many talented people are out there, sharing their knowledge and exchanging their experience here..that's what its all about I think !

3. due to this clever DCS module set up, everyone can judge and decide by himself, if the delievered stuff is approriate for his demand in simulated depth is satsified or not.

I prefer to have the choice than generally limiting the development possibilities cause of your point 2 concerns...

AS usual , by the end of this year.

Hey Jabo2009, I think you miss typed EA instead of ED in you point # 1. EA is not connected to DCS World.

From a developer point of view, we would want nothing less than high fidelity and it is in the back of the mind in everyone on the team.

Let's take a trip back to FC/FC2 days and when teams or people built mods. They were successful because of two things - they took it to the limit of what FC2 could allow them to do, and they were free.

Jump forward to DCS Add-on's and this/next year. People are paying for the modules, therefore you are running a business selling them.

The success of the modules depeneds very much on the marketing of those modules. If you build a bad one, the community will simply shout bad things about it, thereby reducing sales. Of course there are always new people that will buy it because they don't go on forums or get to see the community reaction, but you won't have many sales.

If you make an awesome module, the word-of-mouth marketing alone is priceless. Magazine articles will be written giving more publicity about the module, etc etc. And more sales will be made.

So, from our (VEAO) point of view, we of course want the latter. That being a high fidelity aircraft taking DCS to the edge of what it can do and giving, you, the community not just what it wants, but what it deserves.

The more sales we make, the more aircraft we can produce in a quicker time becuase people are getting paid for the work they are developing.

Like many discussions before, the products need to be clearly marked to what fidelity level they are, FC3 or DCS.

And again as ED have said before, you will clearly know if an aircraft is an ED produced one or a 3rd party dev one.

So just hold on with the pitchforks and the "Burn the witch" chants as you tie us to the stake's ;)

Chris

So just hold on with the pitchforks and the "Burn the witch" chants as you tie us to the stake's ;)

Chris

And for the more excitable forum members - remember - DON'T be tying them to the stake now - let them FINISH something :)

It's hard enough working on this stuff with both hands free ;)

Martin...

This a modern day 'rabble', no more pitchforks and stakes. We have tasers and home made napalm. :P

Not that I am advocating using them!

Hey Jabo2009, I think you miss typed EA instead of ED in you point # 1. EA is not connected to DCS World.

mispelling changed, thx for that..

This a modern day 'rabble', no more pitchforks and stakes. We have tasers and home made napalm. :P

 

Not that I am advocating using them!

CiChlidfan

Be advised, I had made reference to "NAPALM" in the wish list for the P-51 future weapons load out and Damn I got barbecued!!

Seems I gave the impression that the DVS might have overlooked the one weapon and viola, I BECAME A BURNT TARGET!!!

So why don't we replace the word NAPALM with......."a thickener consisting of a mixture of aluminum soaps used in jelling gasoline!"

hehehehe....

Styrofoam and gasoline. ;)

From a developer point of view, we would want nothing less than high fidelity and it is in the back of the mind in everyone on the team.

 

...

 

Like many discussions before, the products need to be clearly marked to what fidelity level they are, FC3 or DCS.

And again as ED have said before, you will clearly know if an aircraft is an ED produced one or a 3rd party dev one.

 

So just hold on with the pitchforks and the "Burn the witch" chants as you tie us to the stake's ;)

 

Chris

I completely agree with this.

And I think that highlighted part is very important. I believe there will be a market for a module even if its level of fidelity or realism isn't on par with DCS. Not every fans out there needs the most realistic flight sim they can have in their PC.

So the most important thing is to let everyone know exactly what they will be getting out of a module. That way, we can avoid any harsh criticism. Or at least I hope that will be the case.

As someone said earlier, we're not forced to buy every module being made. If a module isn't up to our requirement, then we just don't buy it, but let others have it if they want. Most important thing is we know what to expect, so there won't be any users who paid for a module expecting something more than what it can offer.

It would be unfair to criticize a module that isn't on par with DCS' own standard when we have to choice to simply not buy it.

So just hold on with the pitchforks and the "Burn the witch" chants as you tie us to the stake's ;)

 

Chris

All I could think of was

Second: I worry about the future modules. I can't help but thinking that the quality of aircraft coming will be severely reduced. I for one started using DCS products because of their unrivaled realism and flight models. Third parties may not get the military contracts and all the small details about aircraft correct. DCS A-10 was such a hit because ED worked closely with the US Military. Some of these third parties are coming from FSX which is nothing comparable to DCS.

The community analyzed it and reacted by changing payloads in mp missions and at the end if I am not mistaken it got even fixed or improved in a patch.

Either way my point is what doesn't bring it won't get used.

If it destroys the mp experience it will be banned or fixed.

Nothing to worry about.

All I could think of was

 

 

I'm not a witch!!

She turned me into a newt! Well i got better...

haha, awesome movie

I for one only wanted a basic sim to blow shit up in. Then after spending lots of money, what seems like a years worth of income I find I had to push half a dozen buttons before it would even let me shoot a rocket.

Hopefully 3rd parties will make it a bit easier for me. In the mean time, back to hawx.

Then after spending lots of money, what seems like a years worth of income I find I had to push half a dozen buttons before it would even let me shoot a rocket.

the sim or your Mrs.......:smartass:

the sim or your Mrs.......:smartass:

All I will say is that it felt like Deja Vu.