Please be more open with information, or about broken code and secretive plans

[NineLine]

I know this is what you guys are aiming for, which is why DCS is amazing - it was just an example.

 

Why not just say "Well, we can't implement feature X because that type of situation cannot be accurately modeled - since it's not how feature X works in the real world"? Instead of completely dismissing comparisons all around. I'm sure people will still make broad comparisons, but I do not like the idea of just dismissing things completely because they can't be achieved in the real world - isn't that the fun of games and simulators anyway? Dream a little! ;)

 

I don't get what you are saying. If you want a feature, even if you saw it in another game, you are capable of asking for it without referencing another game. Even with Dynamic Campaigns, it's possible to state what you want to see without saying the name of another company.

[nighthawk2174]

But why though? It makes no sense in my eyes why mentioning the name of a company so forbidden or the name of a game. It just makes 0 sense in my book. I get making a rule to say no advertising or putting up ads for other games but not even being allowed to mention its name and what it does better and how nice it'd be to have x feature from y sim in DCS... makes 0 sense. (also answer to your previous question about Links? is above there are more than a few to say the least)

[NineLine]

And most of those have been addressed recently with the point that ground vehicle damage models need improvements and it is planned. That in most cases it's not the weapons issue, but the fact that ground vehicles damage is very rudimentary.

 

 

Links? here you go have fun:

(note these are just threads about the damage of rockets not ones where it was mentioned once or twice in a large thread and also English only as I can't read Russian)

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=129686&highlight=Rocket+Damage

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=127294&highlight=Rocket+Damage

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=120510&highlight=Rocket+Damage

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=115637&highlight=Rocket+Damage

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=105812&highlight=Rocket+Damage

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=105330&highlight=Rocket+Damage

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=92216&highlight=Rocket+Damage

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=96597&highlight=Rocket+Damage

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=97214&highlight=Rocket+Damage

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=93355&highlight=Rocket+Damage

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=92217&highlight=Rocket+Damage

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=61371&highlight=Rocket+Damage

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=54876&highlight=Rocket+Damage

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=54470&highlight=Rocket+Damage

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=41824&highlight=Rocket+Damage

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=36870&highlight=Rocket+Damage

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=14631&highlight=Rocket+Damage

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=5767&highlight=Rocket+Damage

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=159795&highlight=Rocket+Damage

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=227364&highlight=Rocket+Damage

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=217280&highlight=Rocket+Damage

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=203428&highlight=Rocket+Damage

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=205109&highlight=Rocket+Damage

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=202257&highlight=Rocket+Damage

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=161371&highlight=Rocket+Damage

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=193692&highlight=Rocket+Damage

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=172233&highlight=Rocket+Damage

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=190429&highlight=Rocket+Damage

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=184641&highlight=Rocket+Damage

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=161461&highlight=Rocket+Damage

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=161675&highlight=Rocket+Damage

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=157712&highlight=Rocket+Damage

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=153072&highlight=Rocket+Damage

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=149046&highlight=Rocket+Damage

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=144920&highlight=Rocket+Damage

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=143098&highlight=Rocket+Damage

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=139085&highlight=Rocket+Damage

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=135598&highlight=Rocket+Damage

[nighthawk2174]

Right but you guys have been saying it for years and years and years... when is it actually going to get worked on. Also how is a lack of damage by rockets not also a weapons issue? It falls under the category of weapons effectiveness.

[NineLine]

But why though? It makes no sense in my eyes why mentioning the name of a company so forbidden or the name of a game. It just makes 0 sense in my book. I get making a rule to say no advertising or putting up ads for other games but not even being allowed to mention its name and what it does better and how nice it'd be to have x feature from y sim in DCS... makes 0 sense. (also answer to your previous question about Links? is above there are more than a few to say the least)

 

Because you guys can't control yourselves, one guy say he wants this feature from X company, and next thing you know we have half the forums crapping on that company, and the other half crapping on ED, it adds unneeded noise to most discussions, and isn't a valid point, again, we are not using the same software as those guys.

 

If this is just going round and round about how you want to discuss other games, I am just gonna shut this down, it's been answered, it is not happening. This is a forum for DCS World, period.

[NineLine]

Right but you guys have been saying it for years and years and years... when is it actually going to get worked on. Also how is a lack of damage by rockets not also a weapons issue? It falls under the category of weapons effectiveness.

 

The New DM for WWII will eventually be transferred to other aspects of the game. And no, in most cases I have seen, its the DM and not the weapon. ALso, people expect everyone weapon to turn a tank to ash when in most cases its mobility kills, or component, and or crew kills that stop a tank.

 

Again, its the DM that is the big issue here, and it's known and planned to be upgraded. Right now in the ME, you can make workarounds if you want a big Hollywood explosion, or disable a tank.

[nighthawk2174]

No but your in the same genere and will be held up in comparison to those games. And when you'r found lacking in key areas people will complain especially concerning the amount of money many people have thrown at DCS. Additionally it is 10000% valid to compare you guys to that sim that shall not be named, to that other sim with props that shall not be nammed, and that other sorta sim but not really game. Each one doesn't use your code but so what? They have found their own ways of doing things which all outpace and show just how bad DCS is in many regards. Yes this is a forum about dcs world but your forum is the only one where there are just so many rules about not mentioning other games. These other compaines fourms don't feel the need to have a rule

[NineLine]

No but your in the same genere and will be held up in comparison to those games. And when you'r found lacking in key areas people will complain especially concerning the amount of money many people have thrown at DCS. Additionally it is 10000% valid to compare you guys to that sim that shall not be named, to that other sim with props that shall not be nammed, and that other sorta sim but not really game. Each one doesn't use your code but so what? They have found their own ways of doing things which all outpace and show just how bad DCS is in many regards. Yes this is a forum about dcs world but your forum is the only one where there are just so many rules about not mentioning other games. These other compaines fourms don't feel the need to have a rule

 

Yeah, and go visit the DCS threads on many of those other game forums, most of them are toxic and hateful. No thanks.

 

For the last time. It is not happening here.

[nighthawk2174]

I mean the game doesn't even allow you to do mobility kills or crew kills and its been like that for years and years and years with no changes. Additionally most people aren't even asking for that they just want their weapons to do something anything other than just kinda lower the health bar a little.

[NineLine]

I mean the game doesn't even allow you to do mobility kills or crew kills and its been like that for years and years and years with no changes. Additionally most people aren't even asking for that they just want their weapons to do something anything other than just kinda lower the health bar a little.

 

Again, it's been acknowledged and noted that the DM of ground vehicles needs work, and is planned. I can't tell you that anymore. The new DM will track component and shrapnel damage better. Should help most every weapon.

Edited August 28, 2019 by NineLine

[nighthawk2174]

Right but I guess my point i'm trying to get across is, and a question, when will ED stop making modules which suck in resources and focus on fixing the game which is far more important imo?

[NineLine]

Right but I guess my point i'm trying to get across is, and a question, when will ED stop making modules which suck in resources and focus on fixing the game which is far more important imo?

 

ED will not stop making new modules, and ED will continue to fix the game as they have been. As I said, its a balance. If you want ED to be around, we need to continue to grow, doesn't mean the core game is getting abused, far from it, again, look at the changelogs, fixes are there all the time.

[nighthawk2174]

Right I look at the changelogs eagerly awaiting the day it will say *AIM-120C drag improved or *Ground unit damage model improved. And have been for years... small little fixes to things that get broken due to other changes I really don't see as "fixing the game"

[NineLine]

Right I look at the changelogs eagerly awaiting the day it will say *AIM-120C drag improved or *Ground unit damage model improved. And have been for years... small little fixes to things that get broken due to other changes I really don't see as "fixing the game"

 

I can't make you see what you don't want to see. And up to five minutes ago you didn't even think about ground unit damage, you wanted the rockets fixed. So its a certain point of view. We are doing our best to make DCS World the best it can be. Not everyone will be happy with how we do it, many will have a better way in their heads, all we can do is do what we feel is best to maintain our business and our customers.

[Quaggles]

Links?

 

I saw you were asking for links to old bug reports so hopefully this helps, the following are all over a year old, some have large implications for Multiplayer and server performance, the oldest being from 2016:

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=199712

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=207083

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=209552

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=212793

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=211832

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=209551

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=209553

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=226289

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=224866

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=200837

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=209555

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=215619

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=177969

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=225748

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=171586

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=202455

 

And here are some ones within the last year, some of these issues are massively breaking like missile desync or AI not working with dedicated servers:

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=247474

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=229689

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=247968

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=248077

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=244680

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=242981

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=236668

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=237232

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=235628

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=238973

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=241406

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=236578

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=230578

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=231488

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=231489

[nighthawk2174]

9Line they are effectively one in the same the ground damage model and the lack of effective rockets are the same issue. Next, I want to believe you I really do but ignoring long standing issues that kills how fun DCS is just doesn't jive with that want. With any luck at all the new micropose will re-release that other sim that shall not be named on the titan engine and if it is... oh boy by by dcs for me, that's for sure, as dcs won't have the gameplay to really even hope to compete. And maybe then the competition will actually get stuff fixed.

Edited August 28, 2019 by nighthawk2174

[Harlikwin]

I can't make you see what you don't want to see. And up to five minutes ago you didn't even think about ground unit damage, you wanted the rockets fixed. So its a certain point of view. We are doing our best to make DCS World the best it can be. Not everyone will be happy with how we do it, many will have a better way in their heads, all we can do is do what we feel is best to maintain our business and our customers.

 

How about modeling GPS weapon inaccuracies, and TGP targeting inaccuracies. As much as I enjoy my tank and SAM plinking from 40,000 ft, I' confident thats not how it works IRL. I understand part of it is the fact the current damage model for these things necessitates direct hits, but maybe down the road it should be seriously considered because if first generation GPS guided weps were anywhere near as accurate as they are in DCS there wouldn't have been much impetus to develop second generation weps, or systems like DGPS to improve accuracy.

[NineLine]

but ignoring long standing issues

 

Nobody is ignoring anything. If I wanted to ignore stuff I could have not replied to this thread at all.

[NineLine]

How about modeling GPS weapon inaccuracies, and TGP targeting inaccuracies. As much as I enjoy my tank and SAM plinking from 40,000 ft, I' confident thats not how it works IRL. I understand part of it is the fact the current damage model for these things necessitates direct hits, but maybe down the road it should be seriously considered because if first generation GPS guided weps were anywhere near as accurate as they are in DCS there wouldn't have been much impetus to develop second generation weps, or systems like DGPS to improve accuracy.

 

We have heard from SME's that our GPS weapons are better than the real thing, I don't know of any plans to try modelling inaccuracies right now though.

[nighthawk2174]

Really? It sure doesn't feel like they are paying attention to formerly mentioned issues. As they've been issues for years and years and years.

[NineLine]

Really? It sure doesn't feel like they are paying attention to formerly mentioned issues. As they've been issues for years and years and years.

 

Again, you can only see what you want to see, even though I addressed what you asked, you still want to say it's ignored, I can't keep going in circles with you.

[Quaggles]

Nobody is ignoring anything. If I wanted to ignore stuff I could have not replied to this thread at all.

 

There is a difference between entering them a bug tracker to be lost for years and actually prioritising fixing these issues. Sure it's not technically ignoring them but it certainly doesn't get them fixed any time soon.

 

We're in a situation now where AI units (Like IR SAMs and some AAA and tanks) are completely blind on dedicated servers. This issue has existed for going on 7 weeks now I believe and it was just pushed to the STABLE branch.

 

It's clear the ED has no interest in actually maintaining their base simulation while server owners have to spend time picking up the pieces and coming up with solutions and workarounds for them.

[NineLine]

There is a difference between entering them a bug tracker to be lost for years and actually prioritising fixing these issues. Sure it's not technically ignoring them but it certainly doesn't get them fixed any time soon.

 

We're in a situation now where AI units (Like IR SAMs and some AAA and tanks) are completely blind on dedicated servers. This issue has existed for going on 7 weeks now I believe and it was just pushed to the STABLE branch.

 

It's clear the ED has no interest in actually maintaining their base simulation while server owners have to spend time picking up the pieces and coming up with solutions and workarounds for them.

 

That is your opinion, but what is the truth is some of these issues are very complex and take time to fix. I doubt the issue has been forgotten or pushed to the side. But I know when things take time, that is the first thing people want to jump to, that we don't care or don't want to fix stuff.

 

Spoiler alert, a fix is being prepared for the next patch.

Edited August 28, 2019 by NineLine

[Exorcet]

ED will not stop making new modules, and ED will continue to fix the game as they have been. As I said, its a balance. If you want ED to be around, we need to continue to grow, doesn't mean the core game is getting abused, far from it, again, look at the changelogs, fixes are there all the time.

Just a suggestion, perhaps there could be a stronger link between core game features and modules.

 

 

This was done before I believe, if I recall part of the rational for FC3 was to help fund AFM missle development (correct me if I'm wrong). Maybe it would help to satisfy both the new module crowd and awaiting core gameplay improvements crowd if they saw a more direct connection between the two. I mean this is already the case with the F-18 in that ED is developing ground radar modeling (and a lot is transferring to F-16 as well) but perhaps even more of a focus could be put on it, and with the release of every new module, there is also a corresponding related core game aspect that is improved (Just pulling this out of nowhere as an example, but say the F-16 arrives with new AWACS/GCI AI and coding that works with all modules).

[dawgie79]

The whining never stops. I feel pity for developers nowadays.

Oh, and:

 

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=200028

&

 

https://www.polygon.com/2018/1/16/16896172/online-harassment-abuse-cost-of-business