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

[Rosebud47]

I guess that is where I get confused at times as well, that if this is ED's business, and they want it to be successful, why wouldn't they look into what end up being the most obvious points, it doesn't seem very likely they haven't.

 

Or if we do look into something like Vulcan and mention it, then we get the reoccurring "where is it" comments. Again, goes back to balance and releasing enough info, but not too much too early.

 

Anyways, I feel like I am just talking to one or two people, I need to do other stuff than just dance in this thread today, so I am taking a break right now.

 

You´re not only talking to one or two people - many are following this thread and silently appreciate your patience and openess in representation of ED.

 

Good thread here :thumbup:

 

BTW: does this rule not to mention any other Flightsim also counts for the grown ups? :)

[nighthawk2174]

Have you actually used VR for air to air combat? Or ground unit spotting Its barely usable.

 

No but I have now heard mixed results, I have one friend who uses it and can see stuff quite well. So i guess its a bit more varied than I had initally thought.

Edited August 28, 2019 by nighthawk2174

[Harlikwin]

No but I have now heard mixed results, I have one friend who uses it and can see stuff quite well. So i guess its a bit more varied than I had initally thought.

 

There a ton of factors, and its also "settings" dependent to a point. But I don't think anyone that flies in VR would call it "good". I couldn't really play online on servers without labels with an original rift because I couldn't see targets. I now have the most high-res headset (HP Reverb) and its pretty marginal spotting wise, but worlds better than rift.

 

The other issue is that flat screeners get much higher zoom levels than VR users, so for PVP aeroquake VR guys are at disadvantage there without labels.

[nighthawk2174]

Ok then I guess VR needs more work than I thought in this department.

[NineLine]

NineLine, speaking about communication, is there any chance we can get some news on the free map and new World War 2 maps that are in the pipeline? In January it was stated there would be some news later in the year on this, but it's almost September and this year is coming to a close soon.

 

I have asked about them in my most recent community report, but they aren't ready to share much right now, I can tell you what I have seen of the new WWII map is comming along nicely. The free map is still pretty early, but I would expect some news on it, maybe a reveal by the end of the year. But thats just my guesses.

[skywalker22]

Read this whole thread...

 

@NineLine, I think you better stop waisting your time writing/answering here, its getting you no where really.

--

I`m very new to DCS, and I love it, I take it as it is. And I think its a great game/sim. It will never be the same as IRL as many want, since its not possilble, specially because of the missing (telemetry) data of aircrafts and missiles.

I come from car racing sims, I am there for over 20 years, and sims like Assetto Corsa and its successor Assetto Corsa Competizione (which I play for the last 8 years) is the best (for me), its still not perfect, not the same as IRL, but I love it too; actually love it still.

--

What you guys did with DCS is just amazing, so you better concentrate on that, then spending too much time here explaing details of your work.

 

Best regards and thumbs up :)

Edited August 28, 2019 by mitja_bonca

[nighthawk2174]

Mitja yes they've made a good product in terms of FM's and looks but there are just so many core features that just suck, and I think i'm safe in saying a modestly sized group of people are getting tired of the fact they haven't got fixed or even really worked on that much and have been issues for years. Not just missiles but AI, visibility, weather, atc, and weapons effects to name a few. And we really just want these things worked on and/or more visibility on too what's actually being worked on at ED.

[StandingCow]

To those of you calling everyone "whiners" and saying the thread is a waste of time.... your comments aren't helpful. We are all here because we love DCS and want it to be better. No matter how much you love DCS you also need to be aware of where improvement would go a very long way and this is what this thread is about, it's for the most part constructive criticism.

 

Thanks for all the answers 9L, we really do appreciate your time. Hopefully we start to see some of the core features ED are working on make their way into the sim (ATC, DM, etc).

[Emmy]

The interesting thing is that “Open Beta” is not really THE product about which ED should most be concerned. “Stable Branch” is actually the official product.

 

However, a constant low boil over Beta issues serves to support progress on Stable, does it not?

[KTFBGB]

@NineLine

It’s already been said but, I commend you for the very good job you do dealing with Public Relations. Hang in there bro! What this thread mostly taught me is that there is a vocal minority that will always be part of the problem and not the solution. And I mean minority. There are what, 3-4 people on here out of thousands. Statistically the view of the few is insignificant. I come from a first responder background, and have taken many 200 and 300 level leadership courses. One thing that is taught in all of them is that 20% of the organization will eat up 80% of your time IF YOU ALLOW IT. But I’m sure you are very aware of that. Point is job well done, carry on! You are appreciated.

 

Some points I will make which will probably mean absolutely nothing to most on this thread:

 

1. This is a private company, being moderated by said company. You don’t have the right to free speech on a private forum. The owner of the forum does have the right to moderate it, censor it, and do whatever else it thinks is necessary to make sure the comments are constructive, and accomplish their internal goals of having a forum. If you want to talk in ways that are against the rules that’s fine, there are plenty of other outlets to do that.

 

2. I am a business owner. You learn very early on that you have a target customer base. And business 101 teaches that niche companies that hyper focus on their niche customer usually do far better. There are exceptions to the rule but... Any good business owner will absolutely avoid the customers that are undesirable. I have spent years narrowing down my customer base so that only my target customer initiates contact. The customers that are complainers, counter productive, or just difficult to deal with get dropped.

 

3. ED has said they appreciate constructive criticism, and constructive bug reporting. This thread has not been productive. No matter your level of compassion for making the game better, if you don’t do it in a way that ED finds constructive then you will not be heard.You will not foster any change in the organization. The only thing you accomplish is to waste your own time. IT ABSOLUTELY DOES NOT MATTER WHATSOEVER WHAT YOUR OPINION OF HOW ED RUNS ITS BUSINESS SHOUD BE. Telling them they should do things one way or another will quite literally never be heard or considered. If you think you can do it better, then go do it better. Start your own company based on your own market research, and then tell me if you give one Nano second of though to what someone on the internet says about how you deliver your product. Trust me, the answer is that you will not.

 

In closing. I think the more productive way to try and get things changed to how you feel it should be, would be too ask ED what they would consider helpful in advancing the sim. What kind of information and in what format do you need it. How exactly can I help you develop the sim in a way that is meaningful to you as the developer? (P.S. they have done this in the “how to report bugs” sticky). Which most people don’t follow and then get mad that their issue isn’t addressed. I know this will be an unpopular comment on this thread. I said what I wanted to in order to try and contribute something. I will not muddy up the thread any further by responding to any negative posts on my comment that are intended to derail the thread. Happy flying!

[Kid18120]

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.

 

Which is a really good explaination and most of the community already knows that.

The issue here is why the hell won't you (ED) put a workaround in place, while waiting for the proper DM updates / rework, where rockets (or any other weapon that may be affected) do more overall damage to actually kill the tank? We can't mobility kill nor incapacitate ground units right now, so it's either a complete kill or an apparently 0 damage. We'd rather take the complete kill while waiting for the DM updates since a mobility kill it's in fact still a kill and puts a tank (or whatever else) out of a fight.

It has been done with mods, though very rudimentary since the system for weapons damage isn't really that straight forward to us, why can't ED make it an official workaround while waiting for an actual official and definitive fix?

[BIGNEWY]

Which is a really good explaination and most of the community already knows that.

The issue here is why the hell won't you (ED) put a workaround in place, while waiting for the proper DM updates / rework, where rockets (or any other weapon that may be affected) do more overall damage to actually kill the tank? We can't mobility kill nor incapacitate ground units right now, so it's either a complete kill or an apparently 0 damage. We'd rather take the complete kill while waiting for the DM updates since a mobility kill it's in fact still a kill and puts a tank (or whatever else) out of a fight.

It has been done with mods, though very rudimentary since the system for weapons damage isn't really that straight forward to us, why can't ED make it an official workaround while waiting for an actual official and definitive fix?

 

We have requested light smoke for incapacitated / damaged units, to make it easier to spot damage to units.

[Kid18120]

We have requested light smoke for incapacitated / damaged units, to make it easier to spot damage to units.

That's good news, definitively better than nothing but said unit would still be able to move and fight whereas it shouldn't.

 

Would it be that hard and time consuming (genuine question) to add a functionality where if the unit reaches a x% of damage it just will "deactivate" ?

[QuiGon]

so it's either a complete kill or an apparently 0 damage.

That is not true. Ground units become more ineffective the more damage they have recieved. For example, if a tank has 50% damage, it's capabilities (max speed, accuracy, reload speed, spotting distance, reaction times) will be reduced by 50%. There is just no visual represantation of this damage.

It is true though, that this is a pretty arbitrary damage modelling, but it is one at least. Creating a more complex damage model that allows for damaging specific parts of a vehicle is a very huge and complicated task and requires a lot of time and resources.

[BIGNEWY]

That's good news, definitively better than nothing but said unit would still be able to move and fight whereas it shouldn't.

 

Would it be that hard and time consuming (genuine question) to add a functionality where if the unit reaches a x% of damage it just will "deactivate" ?

 

That is what is happening, it is just there is no way of telling by looking at the unit, you would need to look at the life bar in F10 to see its health had been reduced.

[Kid18120]

Alright thanks for clarifying.

[Gierasimov]

I think that since, at least, Hornet, the communications from ED has been excellent.

Surely, there is a place to improve, for example in planned roadmap, but I am glad they are not like other creators - and I don't need to go outside of DCS to compare games or developers, in-house vs. DCS 3rd parties are giving enough room to compare.

 

While I appreciate everything we have got so far, both in development (new features as well as bug fixing) and communication, I am glad that ED is not following Ugra-Media comms style (Have they ever posted anything in their very own section here in the forums?)

 

I understand refraining from issuing dates, but if communication pertains to a work kn progress, I would expect to be given likely year of delivery or at least some roadmap.

I kept asking about SCUD (and DCS:Beef, AKA cows) and Wags finally made that very clear about SCUD - ballistic missile flight model, which will be looked at once the flight model for Viper is done. That was the best answer I was expecting, I did not need to know exact date at all.

Edited August 29, 2019 by Gierasimov

[Al-Azraq]

I have asked about them in my most recent community report, but they aren't ready to share much right now, I can tell you what I have seen of the new WWII map is comming along nicely. The free map is still pretty early, but I would expect some news on it, maybe a reveal by the end of the year. But thats just my guesses.

 

Hi Nineline, thanks for this updates! We the WWII pilots cannot wait to see the news but we are also interested about knowing more info about the DM. Just a small drop of news would be refreshing for us.

[SacredRaziel]

tl;dr: transparency is key; inform your stakeholders

 

 

 

Coming from a project management and military background it seems to me that the main issue in this thread is not really the work applied, but the communication.

I don't claim to have a good overview about PR measures. The only information that is easily accessible are wags videos, patchnotes and a so so roadmap. ED has no obligation to inform the customer entirely and transparently but on the other side it would likely take plenty steam off the forum if there were, for example, regular updates on what is being worked on. Maybe even with information about how much personnel or how many man hours are planned for specific tasks especially on bigger core related problems. Maybe how far it has progressed so far.

 

I highly doubt that a software studio is not using some form of project management and therefore that information would be available und could be communicated. Put a disclaimer in front that it's just a plan and it's likely subject to change. To have information why an old or for some people game breaking issue is not resolved or when it's supposed to be and the resulting insight and understanding is a game changer imho.

 

 

My two cents on constructive criticism and communication management

 

 

 

Gesendet von meinem SM-G960F mit Tapatalk

[probad]

it would likely take plenty steam off

this is the fallacy all of you keep doubling down on

 

there will always be something more that can be done -- this is an utterly sisyphean charade you all are performing here

and you will hate me for calling it out

[skywalker22]

Mitja yes they've made a good product in terms of FM's and looks but there are just so many core features that just suck, and I think i'm safe in saying a modestly sized group of people are getting tired of the fact they haven't got fixed or even really worked on that much and have been issues for years. Not just missiles but AI, visibility, weather, atc, and weapons effects to name a few. And we really just want these things worked on and/or more visibility on too what's actually being worked on at ED.

 

You won`t change a thing. If you are tired, go some place else, forget about DCS. Same I did (won`t say where and how). If you know that much, start making your own game. You will find it, its not so easy as you can say.

 

PS: One more important thing to say, game (and its modules) real or not, its the same for everybody. When you master it, you know how to do it. It would be the same, even if it would be different (real, or not).

Edited August 29, 2019 by mitja_bonca

[StandingCow]

this is the fallacy all of you keep doubling down on

 

there will always be something more that can be done -- this is an utterly sisyphean charade you all are performing here

and you will hate me for calling it out

 

 

There is nothing wrong with always improving.

[SacredRaziel]

this is the fallacy all of you keep doubling down on

 

there will always be something more that can be done -- this is an utterly sisyphean charade you all are performing here

and you will hate me for calling it out

 

 

ofc there can always be done more. but from time to time there also should be done more. if you are satisfied with what you get, good for you. bit for me it feels like a big part of the MP community is not really satisfied. and i cant really blame them.

but maybe i just misinterprete the importance of working multiplayer and the community behind it.

 

 

I dont see myself with the often mentioned audible minority.

I relate more with those players who love DCS and want ED to succeed but still are sad about the current state and situation.

 

 

 

All my work related experience with communication in the end boils down to one thing:

you cant make everyone happy.

 

which is what you just pointed out.

But: the more information you spread, the less space you leave for speculation.

Ofc i am sad when something gets pushed back or arrives later than i expected but most players are smart enough to see, that software development is creative work and therefore suffers from unexpected delays.

 

 

What ED and the community need to overcome in my opinion is a loss of trust and imho the easiest way to do so is open communication. that can be painful but is the first step in a healing process.

The community on the other hand should allow change to happen and maybe calm down here and there to create space for such a process.

[Mars Exulte]

We're not stakeholders. We don't have a 'share' of the company. We paid our money and received a product. That is the end of our involvement in the process.

[Harlikwin]

To echo a point I saw earlier. Something that might be useful, is a set of near-term projects/features being worked on, and longer terms stuff. At least differentiating the two so people have a better idea what is probably coming "sooner" or "later", the example was that the Scud will come after the Viper due to the FM team being busy with the viper.

 

That being said I do absolutely get the whole tell people something and then there will be crowds with pitchforks if its not done a week later angle. But I think some broad idea of what the overall near term priorities are without dates etc could be a good thing. Doesn't have to be a long list either, on the core game side, 1-3 features that "are getting there" and same for each plane model. I.e. For example I have a pretty good idea that the Tpod is being worked on, and the Harpoon based on recent rumblings, and that the ground radar and "improved FLIR model" will come down the road. I have no such understanding of the core game engine features.

 

Also, I'm not sure why there is so much secrecy over the new "free" map location, unless work hasn't actually started on it.