DCS Carrier Discussion

[Harker]

 
You mean you don't listen to community feedback and stick to your internal "roadmap"? Got you.  

To be fair, that's not a necessarily bad idea, although it may look like that, externally. It's usually far less efficient to shift priorities down the line, than it is to stick with the original plan, assuming that no blocking issues arise. I hope I'm right in this case.

The way I (optimistically) see it, is that we can get all the features in, say, 12 months, if ED sticks to its schedule, or get desired features sooner, but then wait 18 months to get everything.

[draconus]

19 hours ago, BIGNEWY said:

Our priorities may seem strange to some, but the team have their reasons. In time it will all come together nicely, we just need to be patient as with all early access modules.

Why not make a roadmap features poll like it was done for F/A-18C and F-16?

[Nealius]

13 hours ago, Harker said:

To be fair, that's not a necessarily bad idea, although it may look like that, externally. It's usually far less efficient to shift priorities down the line, than it is to stick with the original plan, assuming that no blocking issues arise. I hope I'm right in this case.

The way I (optimistically) see it, is that we can get all the features in, say, 12 months, if ED sticks to its schedule, or get desired features sooner, but then wait 18 months to get everything.

 

Feedback still often goes ignored. The community overwhelmingly wants night ops, optional IFLOLS popup, better AI taxi, and other game-critical features while ED focuses on non-critical features like the carrier interior.

[Andartu]

2 hours ago, Nealius said:

 

Feedback still often goes ignored. The community overwhelmingly wants night ops, optional IFLOLS popup, better AI taxi, and other game-critical features while ED focuses on non-critical features like the carrier interior.

 

Yeah it really looks like putting hair and make-up on a skeleton before applying the skin.. 

 

And we all have to hold still and are ordered to have trust in their super secret master plan that will make everything fantastic as always..

 

Alone the non optional IFLOLS after all that time gets emberassing.. 

 

"Thanks"

[Nealius]

Not just without applying skin, but without functional joints on the skeleton at all. 

[Harker]

10 hours ago, Nealius said:

 

Feedback still often goes ignored. The community overwhelmingly wants night ops, optional IFLOLS popup, better AI taxi, and other game-critical features while ED focuses on non-critical features like the carrier interior.

I want the exact same things as the community and I would prefer to see them sooner rather than later. I don't think I'll get much use out of the hangar, because why would a pilot go there and I don't think I'll get much use out of the ready room, because I use Discord with my squadron and it's easy to do briefings and debriefings there. I agree that these features will see marginal use, at best, by a large part of the community.

But, working in code development myself (very different code, but still), I understand that once you start a project with a set schedule and planning, sometimes it's better for both you and the client if you stick to that, rather than change your priorities mid-development, that's all I'm saying.

Edited January 22, 2021 by Harker

[shagrat]

19 hours ago, Nealius said:

 

Feedback still often goes ignored. The community overwhelmingly wants night ops, optional IFLOLS popup, better AI taxi, and other game-critical features while ED focuses on non-critical features like the carrier interior.

Actually you can already deactivate the IFLOLS since last year (setting in lua), just the option in the menu isn't there yet.

AI taxi works pretty good, if you take a little care while taxiing yourself. And as noted in the news/2021 outlook they work on the plane directors to get you from parking to the cats.

The "game-critical" stuff the coders do just isn't cool looking and a picture of a page of code doesn't attract a lot of people, in the way the the new room models from the 3D artists does.

 

[Nealius]

1 hour ago, shagrat said:

The "game-critical" stuff the coders do just isn't cool looking and a picture of a page of code doesn't attract a lot of people, in the way the the new room models from the 3D artists does.

 

 

That's exactly the problem. For the past 10 years we've been on a downward spiral of prioritizing what looks cool versus the actual gameplay we should be enjoying.  Trying to dig deep into the gameplay and finding that DCS stands for "Digital Cockpit Simulator" after all these years is frustrating.

 

And AI taxi does not work well at all. AI traffic jams, AI wingman refusing to taxi after the client in multiplayer, AI ignoring blocked catapults, AI parking well over foul lines while recoveries are still going on, Sixpack spawn if mission paused vs. Elevator spawn if not paused causing taxi issues, AI spawn time causing taxi issues, etc. etc.

Edited January 22, 2021 by Nealius

[shagrat]

1 hour ago, Nealius said:

 

That's exactly the problem. For the past 10 years we've been on a downward spiral of prioritizing what looks cool versus the actual gameplay we should be enjoying.  Trying to dig deep into the gameplay and finding that DCS stands for "Digital Cockpit Simulator" after all these years is frustrating.

 

And AI taxi does not work well at all. AI traffic jams, AI wingman refusing to taxi after the client in multiplayer, AI ignoring blocked catapults, AI parking well over foul lines while recoveries are still going on, Sixpack spawn if mission paused vs. Elevator spawn if not paused causing taxi issues, AI spawn time causing taxi issues, etc. etc.

 

You are aware that coders do code and 3D-ARTISTS do "cool looking things" in parallel? Just that you never see a fancy "screenshot" of some C++ sourcecode? It isn't "prioritized" just done silently in the background, as it's boring to show. Actually a lot of the fixes and new features are often barely mentioned in the release notes (copy paste of statics, unit based triggers working on statics, MP groups with multiple client slots working, damage effects foer ground vehicles ,etc.).

There is a documentation/manual coming with the Super Carrier. The sequence in which you place AI / Client aircraft matters, six-pack spawns only occur on mission start, you need to heed parking space size, statics will block spawn points, etc.

Yes, when player/client aircraft start to taxi AI tries to not collide with them. So need take care when you start to taxi. There is no way for the AI to guess your intentions, so they need to rely on the player to follow the taxiways outlined in the manual.

[Devil 505]

 

9 hours ago, Nealius said:

 

That's exactly the problem. For the past 10 years we've been on a downward spiral of prioritizing what looks cool versus the actual gameplay we should be enjoying.  Trying to dig deep into the gameplay and finding that DCS stands for "Digital Cockpit Simulator" after all these years is frustrating.

 

And AI taxi does not work well at all. AI traffic jams, AI wingman refusing to taxi after the client in multiplayer, AI ignoring blocked catapults, AI parking well over foul lines while recoveries are still going on, Sixpack spawn if mission paused vs. Elevator spawn if not paused causing taxi issues, AI spawn time causing taxi issues, etc. etc.

 

 

 

I fail to see how not incorporating better AI taxiing and parking is a 10 year downward spiral of DCS.  Over the past 10 years ED has done nothing but improve.  There are things that need to be added of course, but to insinuate a continuous fall of the game because a function you desire has not been added is a large stretch.  In fact, AI is being worked and has received some updates.  But I would venture to say the air combat boys would be pissed if ED focused on AI taxing before AI combat. 

 

As a former business owner/operator, you will never be able to please everyone.  I have said it a thousand times, I firmly believe ED and the 3rd party Devs have our best interest in mind.  Just because my needs are not met or prioritized in the order THEIR company has planned out, does not mean they do not care nor are ignoring it.  Keep the faith Nealius, someday in the near future you can sit in the cockpit and watch AI taxi appropriately to your hearts content.  But I for one am really looking forward to the new weather system and dynamic campaign first.  

[Nealius]

On 1/23/2021 at 7:07 AM, robert.clark251 said:

Keep the faith Nealius, someday in the near future you can sit in the cockpit and watch AI taxi appropriately to your hearts content.  But I for one am really looking forward to the new weather system and dynamic campaign first.  

 

Do you think this is a visual issue? The AI taxi prevents mission assets from getting off the deck and accomplishing their mission! That's core functionality, not visuals. You do realize that a Dynamic Campaign won't even work until AI issues like this are fixed? How will you run a campaign when the AI assets won't even get in the air?

 

"Nothing but improve" is pure hyperbole. Yes we have had some improvements. SOME. While other issues like AI, multiplayer sync issues, the-constantly-breaking-radar-missile-guidance, and other core game issues have had zero improvement or gotten worse. Not to  mention a lot of improvements we have gotten were only after the user base complained enough and did ED's research for them (gun dispersion, A-10 peformance, F-5 issues, etc.) because the providers were too egocentric to admit something was wrong and fix it even when an SME told them.

 

People need to take off their rose-colored glasses around here. It's an echo chamber. Fine, keep buying your eternal-EA. I won't spend another penny on anything until it's complete.

Edited January 24, 2021 by Nealius

[draconus]

Imho the glass is half full but starting on a carrier near a wingman you'd better be very agile to not let him crash into you or seeing the AI run through others is very immersion and game breaking experience, I agree.

[Glide]

I had similar issues when I first started using SuperCarrier.  It's very cool to launch with the AI at mission start, but path-finding on the deck is tricky for more than one AI.  I moved to having my units airborne at the start of the mission, and then I have the units recover together so there's some traffic to enjoy on the ride home. 

[Devil 505]

10 hours ago, Nealius said:

 

Do you think this is a visual issue? The AI taxi prevents mission assets from getting off the deck and accomplishing their mission! That's core functionality, not visuals. You do realize that a Dynamic Campaign won't even work until AI issues like this are fixed? How will you run a campaign when the AI assets won't even get in the air?

 

"Nothing but improve" is pure hyperbole. Yes we have had some improvements. SOME. While other issues like AI, multiplayer sync issues, the-constantly-breaking-radar-missile-guidance, and other core game issues have had zero improvement or gotten worse. Not to  mention a lot of improvements we have gotten were only after the user base complained enough and did ED's research for them (gun dispersion, A-10 peformance, F-5 issues, etc.) because the providers were too egocentric to admit something was wrong and fix it even when an SME told them.

 

People need to take off their rose-colored glasses around here. It's an echo chamber. Fine, keep buying your eternal-EA. I won't spend another penny on anything until it's complete.

 

 

Nealius,

 

Going to your profile and looking at your prior posts, it appears you are a very disgruntled customer.  The big question, if you have so many issues with DCS modules and ED's roadmaps, why do you waste so much time trashing them on the forum and playing the sim still?  Move on to something that better suits you.  I will say this, if you can name a combat flight sim better than DCS or that has better AI and comes to the level of realism they do, I am all ears.  If you cannot, you are just wasting your time trashing them all the time.  I will not entertain your comments any further.  I think constructive feedback is good for ED, but trashing them and their approach gets you know where.   

[Rudel_chw]

1 hour ago, Devil 505 said:

 

Nealius,

 

Going to your profile and looking at your prior posts, it appears you are a very disgruntled customer. ...

 

Dont waste your time with this kind of user, I added him to the Ignore list long ago ... pity that the Forum still show me his whining when people quote him   

[Uxi]

No flickering in VR after this last patch. 

[S D]

Quote

That's core functionality, not visuals. You do realize that a Dynamic Campaign won't even work until AI issues like this are fixed? How will you run a campaign when the AI assets won't even get in the air?

 

This, this and more this...  PLEASE people, understand. It's not bashing ED for the sake of it, we are all fans and want DCS to become what the potential shows. These problems are critical, but don't often get shown with the small scale that most scenarios in DCS currently are.  The dynamic campaign, will not work in the current state of the game, i have no doubt that ED are aware of these issues, because quite frankly they can be highlighted fairly quickly by dynamically adding AI to a scenario in any scale which would be considered necessary for modern day flight ops.  There are so many fundamentals missing or not working currently "under the surface" and that's not to mention the MP side of things, that's a whole other beast.  To my mind, in the approach to any kind of dynamic campaign release, we should be seeing these problems addressed.  But we're not, or at least not being informed of any progress, which is the most frustrating.

 

Sorry but based off evidence so far, using the dynamic campaign as an example, i just dont see ED releasing an all singing all dancing system with all these underlying issues fixed, like people seem to be expecting.

 

 

Edited January 31, 2021 by Shadow.D.

[LanceCriminal86]

And what good will those dynamic campaigns be while things like splash damage and the whole damage model for ground units is borked. Or the AI that defies physics, notches perfectly, etc. Or how about having to run 3rd party scripts so the carrier behaves like a real one and steams into the wind for launch cycles and resumes course until the next launch/recovery window? Or how about trying to have a proper rescue chopper follow said carrier when it turns dynamically? Or the 200 polygon S-3 and SH-60 models, and all the other BLUFOR/REDFOR AI models.

 

Last year there was a whole forum kerfluffle about users wanting more focus on core engine issues. In response, they slowed the patch cycle for "better quality patches" and avowed that the core would take more focus. We don't seem to have had a lot of core fixes, and the patches were just as broken but with more time in-between while you waited for the next cycle. Yeah, we're getting pretty new clouds which helps with screenshots, but what good is that when if I barely scoot forwards in my jet on the supercarrier and my AI wingman immediately sets off and turns right into me?

 

The Hornet and Viper have gotten pretty hefty updates even though they are behind the original promised delivery on some bits, but what about the Supercarrier? We got a few extra boats but no changes to the number of parking slots. You have to use creative mission building to spawn anywhere but the front of the boat or on the cats.

 

You only see complaining. But when folks have limited amounts of time to plop down and enjoy their investment (because let's be honest, this isn't the same as picking up the Game of the Year edition on summer sale for 10 bucks), they want their investment to work and feel good. Eventually the euphoria wears off.

[Rudel_chw]

4 minutes ago, LanceCriminal86 said:

...

You only see complaining. 

 

Yes ... this kind of rants serve no purpose, if DCS is so "borked" why dont you give up and go fly something else?  that would be a lot better than just ranting away 

 

[LanceCriminal86]

Just now, Rudel_chw said:

 

Yes ... this kind of rants serve no purpose, if DCS is so "borked" why dont you give up and go fly something else?  that would be a lot better than just ranting away 

 

 

Blind protection and failure to provide any criticism doesn't improve anything either.

 

I have already stated elsewhere that due to the many issues above, I don't actually fly DCS anymore. I do my best to provide skins for the community so at least those that can look past them, for now, can enjoy their time. F-14 module users have been clamoring for historic skins to go with the various carrier airwings that served on the Supercarriers we have, and on the forthcoming Forrestal/class as well, so I'm putting my time towards helping make that happen.

 

A community manager's JOB is to take gripes, moans, and complaints and keep tabs on them. People being active and complaining means they're at least still here, and still engaged in the product. When it's too quiet, it usually means either everyone is too engrossed to play, or, they've all left. It's not too quiet around here so, at least that means people are still playing, checking in, and buying modules.

 

Why don't YOU sit back, conserve YOUR energy, and let ED address our concerns while you happily look past issues that others can't.

[wilbur81]

On 1/22/2021 at 4:07 PM, Devil 505 said:

 

I fail to see how not incorporating better AI taxiing and parking is a 10 year downward spiral of DCS.  Over the past 10 years ED has done nothing but improve. 

 

As a former business owner/operator, you will never be able to please everyone.  I have said it a thousand times, I firmly believe ED and the 3rd party Devs have our best interest in mind.  Just because my needs are not met or prioritized in the order THEIR company has planned out, does not mean they do not care nor are ignoring it.  Keep the faith Nealius, someday in the near future you can sit in the cockpit and watch AI taxi appropriately to your hearts content.  But I for one am really looking forward to the new weather system and dynamic campaign first.  

Agreed.

[boyington2]

Hi everyone !

 

I'm looking for a way to change the LSO Point of view and put it inside the Tower (or even create a new view)

For now, i've just add a new "Crew" on the 1st launcher (crew coordonnate below)  and switch to it with Alt+F9 key after selecting the 1st launcher view (Ctrl+F9). But the point of view is like a F2 view of a plane around the new defined crew. I managed to have good views (see picture) with that but it's quite annoying to maintain the view with the Track IR. Does anyone have a solution to manage to change or create new views into the tower directly  ?

 

I've also tried to modify the LSOView in the "DCS World OpenBeta\CoreMods\tech\USS_Nimitz\Database\db_ships.lua " file :

 

Quote

CVN_7X_LSOView  = {cockpit = "empty", position = {--[[connector = "",]] offset = runway_centerline(-14.0) }}

 

but nothing change.

 

Crew definition added to "DCS World OpenBeta\CoreMods\tech\USS_Nimitz\scripts\crew.lua":

Quote

                [7] = {
                    ["routes"] = {
                    },
                    ["animation"] = "idle",
                    ["model_name"] = "carrier_tech_usa",
                    ["unit_type"] = "us carrier tech",
                    ["livery"] = "green",
                    ["name"] = "green_nw",
                    ["position"] = {
                        [1] = -38.5,
                        [2] = 34.8,
                        [3] = 23,
                        [4] = 140,
                    },
                },

 

Thank for your help guys

 

[oldcrusty]

On 2/10/2021 at 3:00 PM, LanceCriminal86 said:

...A community manager's JOB is to take gripes, moans, and complaints and keep tabs on them...

 

 'gripes' caught my eye for some reason

Yep, gripes can be a proof of life...  and lots of people still have some red blood left (in spite of the global effort to change that, hehe)

 

I can definitely understand prioritizing 'important stuff' and shoving little things to the side. These little things sometimes would make a big difference, for instance getting rid of a horrendous glow at night that is uniformly attached to any light source, from FLOLS, line-up lights to a/c position lights. The lights looked better before and probably would not take that much effort to fix? 

[Nealius]

On 2/19/2021 at 10:09 PM, boyington2 said:

Hi everyone !

 

I'm looking for a way to change the LSO Point of view and put it inside the Tower (or even create a new view)

For now, i've just add a new "Crew" on the 1st launcher (crew coordonnate below)  and switch to it with Alt+F9 key after selecting the 1st launcher view (Ctrl+F9). But the point of view is like a F2 view of a plane around the new defined crew. I managed to have good views (see picture) with that but it's quite annoying to maintain the view with the Track IR. Does anyone have a solution to manage to change or create new views into the tower directly  ?

 

I've also tried to modify the LSOView in the "DCS World OpenBeta\CoreMods\tech\USS_Nimitz\Database\db_ships.lua " file :

 

 

but nothing change.

 

 

 

 

 

 

This was possible way back in 2.5; I created this mod for the freeware Stennis that theoretically could have been used with the Supercarrier, but ED disabled the ability to modify platcam coordinates some time after version 2.5.5. As a workaround, you can select one of the catapult views (RCtrl+F9?), use the mouse and scroll wheel to put the camera inside the tower, then unlock the camera with LAlt+F2, use the mouse to pan the camera whichever direction you desire. Then use TrackIR for further panning of the camera/tracking aircraft. 

 

As for the complaints, I have a passion for military aviation and I want DCS to be more than just a cockpit simulator, and in its current state it is nothing more than a cockpit simulator. As another mentioned, the euphoria has worn off after years of CASE I/III and weapons practice because whenever I try employing these skills I worked so hard to learn in an actual "combat mission," the AI pathfinding and broken physics (among other numerous issues) ruins everything and makes the "combat mission" unplayable from the start. There's nothing more frustrating in life than working so hard to learn and maintain skills, only to never be able to apply them. The second most frustrating thing is a company that prioritizes profits over product maintenance. The code debt incurred on DCS is going to bite us all in the ass at some point. It's already slowly getting more and more obvious as newer features are introduced to the core engine.

Edited February 21, 2021 by Nealius

[CheckGear]

16 hours ago, Nealius said:

As for the complaints, I have a passion for military aviation and I want DCS to be more than just a cockpit simulator, and in its current state it is nothing more than a cockpit simulator. As another mentioned, the euphoria has worn off after years of CASE I/III and weapons practice because whenever I try employing these skills I worked so hard to learn in an actual "combat mission," the AI pathfinding and broken physics (among other numerous issues) ruins everything and makes the "combat mission" unplayable from the start. There's nothing more frustrating in life than working so hard to learn and maintain skills, only to never be able to apply them. The second most frustrating thing is a company that prioritizes profits over product maintenance. The code debt incurred on DCS is going to bite us all in the ass at some point. It's already slowly getting more and more obvious as newer features are introduced to the core engine.

 

 

DCS is a very ambitious project, something that's never been attempted in the history of gaming. Therefore, we should all expect to be "WIP" for years to become. It's possible we'll never really enjoy its full potential until later this decade. I realize how frustrating this is, but I'd rather have DCS in its buggy, unfinished state than not at all.

 

As for "profits over product maintenance," find me a company that doesn't do that. Any business venture that doesn't make money won't survive. That's it. A business that doesn't try to make money doesn't deserve to exist. DCS is a product created by people who make less money than you think they do and they're driven by passion. That's not me shilling for ED, that's the reality of the arts. Making money as an artist is very difficult, even if you, as the consumer, feel like you're paying a disproportionate price for the product.