Best news for 2020: Focus on CORE of simulation

[Pikey]

That's a valid argument, but I don't agree they should spend all resources on MP. I'm SP primairly and I always considered the MP component to be a tack-on and still do, but this isn't really anything new or a secret, and it's natual that the MP component will be rewritten from ground up, it's well known within the industry MP is very hard, it's not just some "netcode", that's a legacy term that stuck, which has a much lesser connotation that severely downplays the complexity of what MP code of today is and is required to be.

 

To get an idea here's a dev talk but ofcourse only the general things are relevant, engine specifig things ofcourse don't count necessairly.

(i just hope this isn't considered "competitor", there's logos, but primarily tech talk)

The issue with SP/MP is that they are two different games right now. In SP you can do more with the aircraft, do interesting cockpit arguments, gates, things work, certain scripted elements are working. Unfortunately I have to AGREE with you, because MP was always from a "tacked on" perspective. But why should it not be the same? Why should a Single Player PvE player not go into a multiplayer server and have the same experience with humans flying around them? For example, for those that don't fly with friends, the first day everyone realises multiplayer is silly, is when they are flying with their friend for the first time through clouds and one person finds its raining and the other can see clearly right next to him. It chucks you out of the immersion seat, for sure and doesnt stop there. Traffic, you give a talk on in your TGP and stupidly refer to a car on the road, "red saloon". Your wingman cant see anything like that. And it doesn't just stop there. Far far worse, you are in the same plane, fire the same missile and it goes in TWO DIFFERENT DIRECTIONS for you each!! Datalink, the funky ridiculous magic mode 4 IFF, the deck slipping... Is this not the very basics of bringing people into multiplayer and creating a good experience?! :) There is no wonder you consider it a tack on in all honesty!

 

And, there is the "hidden from sight". Ever wondered why certain things aren't found on MP servers? Like large front line battles, with hundreds of moving ground troops in decent persistent campaigns that a mainly Single player could log into, have some fun, maybe interact a little, feel immersed in a world? Then come back to the next day and found that what they did was still going and their contribution counted in some small way?

 

 

Let me tell you ... I have worked with some of the finest minds, intellectuals with enough spare time to run several companies, coding seperately on DCS and yet no genius can fulfill this dream and simply do it for ED because Multiplayer is an absolute shit show when it comes to any moving units at scale. It destroys servers causes warping, just doesn't work. We have a full suite of tools in the unsupported Scripting engine that have so many breakages and bugs that at any particular point. We could create the most wonderful things for single and multiplayer but we all aim for the sky, the "persistent world". And we end up with servers running on the absolute edge of panic, tuned to hell, all kinds of trickery and spawning control to keep the game from falling over, battling memory leaks caused by hooks on carriers, bugs that send planes to the wrong airbases or cause helicopter AI to block your decks.

 

 

We could give the single player hope and a fantastic experience if DCS can fulfill it's end of the bargain. Right now, people are just quitting because their work is trashed, things that ran for years just stopped on 2.5.6. ED said they were working on the CORE. They have. They touched it and made it substantially and noticeably worse (if you follow the under the hood changes) with the latest patch.

 

I'm begining to regret asking for this for the last few years, I honestly am, it's destroyed the player base on my server, it's killed a few of my very useful scripts, it's killed my passion for Multiplayer and I'm just not playing as much, just watching and again, hoping...

[ThorBrasil]

A great video of Dubai at night for ED to follow and improve the night lighting of DCS even more. Thanks ED for the great job!

 

[will-]

I do not understand why you think any model is better than the other w/out actual numbers to decided. good thing none of you are a CFO.

[Worrazen]

There is no wonder you consider it a tack on in all honesty!

 

Oh yeah, let me clarify that, they may be two separate games and should be treated as such on one development level, certainly using the the same data set so there is no change in that regard but in terms of the code they're more separate than one would think and they should be, SP shouldn't have any tweaks or limitations that are meant for MP, and vice versa.

 

The way I meant tack-on was from a practical user point of view where the you play MP 10% of the time.

 

I'm not saying MP is bad or we don't need it, so let's not overkill our critical analysis just because we prefer SP at this point in time, infact I was looking to try MP I just never came far enough, I really need a new joystick first and TrackIR, that 500€ I can't pull out of the air right now and I still need to learn these aircraft to not look like a jerk in MP, some people want MP so badly they're willing to put up with the downsides .... wait willing, but they're complaining so much ... however if these problems appear to happen with 2.5.6 OB then that's the thing right here, serious MP communities should avoid betas then.

 

You and others shouldn't be bashing them for "runining it in 2.5.6" that is a whole new build with many things going on besides MP, it's not intended, it's a bug, and it's WIP.

 

The whole "MP as a tack-on" is also more philosopical but it does the trick when anything goes wrong with MP I simply don't get upset, sometimes not stable, it'll get stabler later, taking it super seriously can be a trap people fall into.

 

DCS tech in many ways is behind industry standards so after a season of modules it's time to close the hatches and dive deep to play catchup, but not really because the industry said so, but because people are so demanding ... wo wo wo wait a minute, but that's the gaming industry standard that people want to just expect to just carry over, while we are in the sim industry, it can't just carry over easily that, for your realism you have to sacrifice something else, however what DCS is I think becoming, is a hybrid, that is a big sim with enough evolution that it does have the good graphics component and other things that can be used to make a gaming/entertainment experience possible.

 

This gets into complicated philosopical area, whether trying to learn an aircraft from a serious sim perspective can be considered a type of entertainment as well, and what really "pure entertainment" even means, the thing may be relative and virtual to the person like what you make of it, but I don't know, I still rather separate this with some objective definition that doesn't need to be very strict, just roughly, and if a person considers his serious learning session to be his best and only entertainment then so be it. The users can have different meanings of entertainment, but if a product tries to serve more types of people it has to have it's own balance, separation and adjustability. I agree with the clean A-10C cockpit textures thing, baseline first. It makes much more sense for the offical version to have baselines rather than unofficial mods, now I'm not a pilot but my opinion still comes from this philosopy and not from my personal taste, the reality argument is invalid because both are real, the pilots just aren't likely to deal with a brand new aircraft delivered fresh, but it does look fresh when it is devliered. Because for serious flight simming like I want to learn, is a cockpit texture really important, so that's a subjective entertainment thing IMO, that's my point. Outside of this ofcourse worn-texture should come as well equally because that's what the customer wants in real life in practice and that is part of the reality of what pilots experience.

 

 

I'm mostly disappointed at the bright minds in the popular gaming industry that are totally eye-starred by the very kindergarden (in terms of reality accuracy and many other things) games like calls of various duties and battles on a field, they have no interest for any serious type of game like a solar system simulator or flight simulator. Remember Doom 4 debalce, they scrapped it all as it turned into a mish-mash of COD and BF, the studio heads weren't training the new generations and the whole new hires were out of sync with any of the legacy of real PC games.

Edited March 16, 2020 by Worrazen

[Pikey]

The way I meant tack-on was from a practical user point of view where the you play MP 10% of the time.

You've identified your own personal taste all the way through your post without acceptance that not everyone plays in the same manner. For example, I haven't "played" Single player since 2015. I don't own any DLC campaigns and will never buy one because I do not like the format or the experience of flying alone. I use the training material once, i find it frustratingly slow and hate the entire "press space bar to continue" voice. I prefer learning with others in a group and asking questions and then showing someone else. When I need a process I'll check out a coupe of videos, scribble some notes and then try it out myself. But none of this means that I or you are not part of the same group of customers, we just have different ways of enjoying the product and different views on what the "CORE" of the game actually is. I see the CORE as a very low level item, key features that might have absolutely no relation to a single player, like for instance, single players probably have no idea that clouds in multiplayer are not synchronised. To me, however, this is absolutely core. Apart from the other examples I gave in my post on the differences there are lots of examples where you cannot say things like Multiplayer is a "tack-on". I had assumed you meant it had received little development, when in actual fact it seems like you don't think it has validity for the majority in terms of precedence. That's a very limited way of looking at things and I cannot in any way support your view on this.

[etherbattx]

Multi core support would allow to implement advanced weather, advanced AI, more graphical effects, bigger maps, more physical calculations, dynamic campaign, more ground forces AND improved performance.

double the cores , double the threads double the performance.

 

smh

 

it’s like free magic all rolled up into one.

[clayvt]

just watched a pretty neat video explaining Vulkan implementation in another big sim.

Pretty interesting learning a little bit more how Vulkan is used.

 

[wilbur81]

Without a MAJOR Vulkan implementation in DCS, I can't see new weather+Dynamic Campaign ever happening successfully. Right now, in 2.5.6, with 300 - 400 units on the entire map, FPS come to a single digit crawl on my (not terrible, but moderately good) system.

[dorianR666]

with 300 - 400 units on the entire map

if you want to simulate war on a huge map, you need to make approximations. nobody can expect ED to have thousands of units moving and fighting around at the same time, thats not possible.

 

i bet its gonna be something similar to the bubble system that the Other Sim uses.

[Eagles787]

I wouldn't mind a subscription model, but the problem is that I don't see what it could offer, that we don't have right now. I, for example, am mostly into modern aircraft, so I'll likely take a pass on the 2020 offerings and don't care about EA access to them. And I've already paid for everything, so why would I pay a sub fee? The problem is that you can't take away existing features and retroactively lock them behind a subscription.

 

That's the problem for ED with the current payment model i think. Not every user will keep buying new modules, yet we do expect the current sim to evolve and improve with better graphics, AI, MP, dynamic campaigns, dynamic weather, damage model etc etc. A lot of software that requires continues evolution are subscription based and i think that's fair. Offering DCS world for free in the current times with fast hardware and cloud capabilities improvements will leave them behind eventually. I think a monthly subscription of even lets say for example $5 to access DCS world, and then the ability to buy extra modules like we have now would give them the resources to work more on the Core game which is desperately needed if they want the game to survive. We pay monthly subscriptions for our cloud storage, our music, Netflix etc, this should be no different if we at least want this platform to continue. Eventually they will run out of modules that you can develop for this, and it will all come to a stop.

Edited April 5, 2020 by Arjan2856

[Harker]

That's the problem for ED with the current payment model i think. Not every user will keep buying new modules, yet we do expect the current sim to evolve and improve with better graphics, AI, MP, dynamic campaigns, dynamic weather, damage model etc etc. A lot of software that requires continues evolution are subscription based and i think that's fair. Offering DCS world for free in the current times with fast hardware and cloud capabilities improvements will leave them behind eventually. I think a monthly subscription of even lets say for example $5 to access DCS world, and then the ability to buy extra modules like we have now would give them the resources to work more on the Core game which is desperately needed if they want the game to survive. We pay monthly subscriptions for our cloud storage, our music, Netflix etc, this should be no different if we at least want this platform to continue. Eventually they will run out of modules that you can develop for this, and it will all come to a stop.

I agree that ED needs a more reliable and less srress-inducing revenue source, but the fact remains that anyone who bought a module, bought it with the expectation that this was a one-time expense that guaranteed the use of that particular module. It is also how ED sells them, so they can't legally lock existing purchases behind a subscription. It'd probably be a breach of consumer law.

They could start selling everything under a subscription from now on, that'd work just fine. In fact, I think they should. I'd also join fairly quickly, if not immediately.

Another solution that they can offer as a voluntary option to existing paying customers is to convert their existing purchases into credit for subscription costs, based on what they bought and when (I bought the A-10C in 2013 or 2014, so I've certainly gotten my money's worth and I don't expect credit from there, but I certainly expect credit for the Viper (more) and the Hornet (a little less), since the yeeees more recent modules and still in development, so I haven't been able to get the full experience for a decent amount of time, yet). I'd also switch to that, because I want to help ED. But there has to be a value associated with existing purchases and since they were sold as one-time expenses, the switch cannot be mandatory, in my opinion.

[wilbur81]

if you want to simulate war on a huge map, you need to make approximations. nobody can expect ED to have thousands of units moving and fighting around at the same time, thats not possible.

 

i bet its gonna be something similar to the bubble system that the Other Sim uses.

 

For sure, but we're not talking about thousands of units moving around. We're talking about less than 400. Honestly 200 units in 2.5.6 brings things to a grinding halt with medium/high setting. Note, I'm a 4K player, though. I think DCS at 1080p works really well. Again, this can be remedied somewhat, I think, with a really aggressive Vulkan implementation.

Edited April 5, 2020 by wilbur81

[Eagles787]

I agree that ED needs a more reliable and less srress-inducing revenue source, but the fact remains that anyone who bought a module, bought it with the expectation that this was a one-time expense that guaranteed the use of that particular module. It is also how ED sells them, so they can't legally lock existing purchases behind a subscription. It'd probably be a breach of consumer law.

They could start selling everything under a subscription from now on, that'd work just fine. In fact, I think they should. I'd also join fairly quickly, if not immediately.

Another solution that they can offer as a voluntary option to existing paying customers is to convert their existing purchases into credit for subscription costs, based on what they bought and when (I bought the A-10C in 2013 or 2014, so I've certainly gotten my money's worth and I don't expect credit from there, but I certainly expect credit for the Viper (more) and the Hornet (a little less), since the yeeees more recent modules and still in development, so I haven't been able to get the full experience for a decent amount of time, yet). I'd also switch to that, because I want to help ED. But there has to be a value associated with existing purchases and since they were sold as one-time expenses, the switch cannot be mandatory, in my opinion.

 

When you buy a module, you buy it for the current state of DCS World. We can't expect software to be continuously updated from a one time purchase. All they have to do is when DCS World 3.0 comes out to make it a subscription. People who don't want to buy into that can perfectly keep using their current modules under DCS 2.5. The continuous evolution of the core software needs to be separated from the module purchases. Right now everybody is frustrated with the state the game is in, and if they continue like this it will just got worse from here on.

[Count Sessine]

Improved clouds and weather effects are long overdue. Good news.

[mhe]

I'd be willing to pay for a Deluxe version of the core engine with all the improvements. I believe giving the hardest to make part of the whole stack away for free creates a problem with incentives for ED - which is why we see one unfinished early access module after the other, but never finishing anything. So they, by necessity, have to do what keeps the doors open, I get that.

 

So how about we just pay them for what we want them to do? If we want core updates, we should pay them for it. Not necessarily a subscription model, but if DCS 2.5 stays free and 3.0 with all the new goodies becomes payware, I wouldn't mind at all. I just want the goods and feel zero entitlement getting it for free.

 

Screw the entitled penny pinchers. If ED wanted to, they could still give away the new core for free at some point, but they need money to dedicate resources towards this endeavour, otherwise it will always be on the backburner compared to tasks that create income like announcing new modules or terrains.

Edited April 6, 2020 by mhe

[Arctander]

I'd be willing to pay for a Deluxe version of the core engine with all the improvements. I believe giving the hardest to make part of the whole stack away for free creates a problem with incentives for ED - which is why we see one unfinished early access module after the other, but never finishing anything. So they, by necessity, have to do what keeps the doors open, I get that.

 

So how about we just pay them for what we want them to do? If we want core updates, we should pay them for it. Not necessarily a subscription model, but if DCS 2.5 stays free and 3.0 with all the new goodies becomes payware, I wouldn't mind at all. I just want the goods and feel zero entitlement getting it for free.

 

Screw the entitled penny pinchers. If ED wanted to, they could still give away the new core for free at some point, but they need money to dedicate resources towards this endeavour, otherwise it will always be on the backburner compared to tasks that create income like announcing new modules or terrains.

 

I also would pay a one off charge for a ‘major iteration’ charge to pay for COMPLETED improvements (not Pay is now and by the time the next major iteration is a charged for we’ll have done it).

 

As such a subscription model is right out...

[Erich Alfred Hartmann]

That's the problem for ED with the current payment model i think. Not every user will keep buying new modules, yet we do expect the current sim to evolve and improve with better graphics, AI, MP, dynamic campaigns, dynamic weather, damage model etc etc. A lot of software that requires continues evolution are subscription based and i think that's fair. Offering DCS world for free in the current times with fast hardware and cloud capabilities improvements will leave them behind eventually. I think a monthly subscription of even lets say for example $5 to access DCS world, and then the ability to buy extra modules like we have now would give them the resources to work more on the Core game which is desperately needed if they want the game to survive. We pay monthly subscriptions for our cloud storage, our music, Netflix etc, this should be no different if we at least want this platform to continue. Eventually they will run out of modules that you can develop for this, and it will all come to a stop.

 

NO, under no circumstances, I refuse, I have paid money for my modules, the base game is free because they wanted it to be themselves, I refuse to have to pay a subscription to play my video games / simulators, on the other hand In my case, I don't pay to watch TV, nor do I have Netflix, nor HBO, nor do I want or need it, I don't pay to watch TV.

 

 

If you want to do something real, put DCS world at 60 euros with two base planes, but a subscription to play? we are crazy?

 

if they did that, I would directly uninstall the simulator and never come back.

[Gryzor]

NO, under no circumstances, I refuse, I have paid money for my modules, the base game is free because they wanted it to be themselves, I refuse to have to pay a subscription to play my video games / simulators, on the other hand In my case, I don't pay to watch TV, nor do I have Netflix, nor HBO, nor do I want or need it, I don't pay to watch TV.

 

 

If you want to do something real, put DCS world at 60 euros with two base planes, but a subscription to play? we are crazy?

 

if they did that, I would directly uninstall the simulator and never come back.

 

What is the problem of paying a monthy subscription of 10 €??? I´m sure that many of us when go out home spend much more than 10€ WTF... (not this time... due COV19). Ever my gym which I go 2-3 days per week costs me over 70€ per month.

 

You seems that don´t realice that this is not like a "closed" videogamem, like BF1, TW3, HLA, etc..., its a bit different, cause its evolving over time, like many others sims or programs... how many time do you have to pay a yearly subscription just to use newer versions of Autocad3d or other similar programs that are evolving??

 

@ED developers: please consider turning your product in a montly subscriptions, maybe hire specialists in core optimization - graphic engine programmers, vulkan specialists, etc.. -we´re many years waiting promissed new feautures, and I feel that you maybe don´t have the necessary resources just to control many new features only speaking about different modules.

 

I will be very happy to pay 10-12 € per month (appart of the modules I bought is the past , more than 600€...), if really I´ll see improvements in my SIM (and not promises year after year...).

Edited April 6, 2020 by Gryzor

[unknown]

Why do you turn this thread in another "subscription" model thread??? There is already one in the wishlist subforum, go talk about it there for the millionst time:

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=255290

 

There is by the way a poll about that topic in that thread, nearly 600 people voted and 80% of them said NO, one was me.

 

If you have enough money to spare beg ED to open up a Paypal or Patreon account for people who want to donate money. :music_whistling: Or look at the forums if there are people who wish to get modules but can't afford them, just buy these people the modules as a gift -> that way you supported ED and you made a community member happy!

[Erich Alfred Hartmann]

What is the problem of paying a monthy subscription of 10 €??? I´m sure that many of us when go out home spend much more than 10€ WTF... (not this time... due COV19). Ever my gym which I go 2-3 days per week costs me over 70€ per month.

 

You seems that don´t realice that this is not like a "closed" videogamem, like BF1, TW3, HLA, etc..., its a bit different, cause its evolving over time, like many others sims or programs... how many time do you have to pay a yearly subscription just to use newer versions of Autocad3d or other similar programs that are evolving??

 

@ED developers: please consider turning your product in a montly subscriptions, maybe hire specialists in core optimization - graphic engine programmers, vulkan specialists, etc.. -we´re many years waiting promissed new feautures, and I feel that you maybe don´t have the necessary resources just to control many new features only speaking about different modules.

 

I will be very happy to pay 10-12 € per month (appart of the modules I bought is the past , more than 600€...), if really I´ll see improvements in my SIM (and not promises year after year...).

 

I repeat again I refuse, I do not have (nor do I want) to pay a month for something that I have already paid for, and most of us are fed up with subscriptions, I do not see it as viable, that it stays like this, as I said before I prefer DCS world at 60 euros + 2 modules (that is fine with me), I prefer that, not a monthly subscription as if it were a service, if they do that I get off the train, I refuse to have a subscription, I do not care if it is 1 euro, 5 euros, 10 euros or 1000 euros. This is not a gym, or Netflix, or WOW, or any mediocre paid subscription game, or any kind of service of this type.

[TAW_Blaze]

NO, under no circumstances, I refuse, I have paid money for my modules, the base game is free because they wanted it to be themselves, I refuse to have to pay a subscription to play my video games / simulators, on the other hand In my case, I don't pay to watch TV, nor do I have Netflix, nor HBO, nor do I want or need it, I don't pay to watch TV.

 

 

If you want to do something real, put DCS world at 60 euros with two base planes, but a subscription to play? we are crazy?

 

if they did that, I would directly uninstall the simulator and never come back.

 

I'd rather pay a little extra to have a functioning software instead of alltogether stopping to use it at all because multiplayer once again is borderline unplayable for over the last month.

 

Clearly the current business model does not support a well maintained and evolving core simulation. If it did not for the last 12 years, it won't change now.

[nanucq]

just watched a pretty neat video explaining Vulkan implementation in another big sim.

Pretty interesting learning a little bit more how Vulkan is used.

 

 

Yep, and as a player of the "other big sim", aka XPlane 11.50 Beta, last week's Vulkan implementation is a pure joy, the sim is now smooth as silk and with a gain of 70% fps on my setup :thumbup:.

Even when the fps drops a little on heavy sceneries, i experience no stutters, impressive feeling.

I hope ED will look into Vulkan this year, gaining graphic ressources would allow to develop others aspects of the sim.

Edited April 6, 2020 by nanucq

[Snappy]

I'd rather pay a little extra to have a functioning software instead of alltogether stopping to use it at all because multiplayer once again is borderline unplayable for over the last month.

 

Clearly the current business model does not support a well maintained and evolving core simulation. If it did not for the last 12 years, it won't change now.

 

That may or may not part of the reason for the issues with core, but there are others if you ask me. Certainly not least of them is the spaghetti code situation we have now and honestly, I dont know if that can be fixed no matter how much money you throw at it.

 

 

Ok , if you assume the money would be used for a complete rewrite from zero , fine, then I 'm willing to pay a one off payment.

 

Another thing is ED focus on things. They could ve set up a lot of things differently from the get-go or at least focused on certain aspects along the road.

 

But some Issues and bugs have languished for years and no one seems to care.Or maybe new ones pop up faster than the old ones can be adressed.

 

 

The A.I system alone has been broken for so long and even now, according to their latest published timelines, its still in the far future category.

Honestly for a sim that supposedly is mainly driven by its singleplayer base , I have trouble getting that logic.

 

But of course its easier to monday-morning quarter back than to get that stuff done, however right now I've lost trust in EDs ability to turn things around and will not be throwing money at them monthly because

I'm not really convinced that will make things turn out differently.

 

 

Regards,

Snappy

Edited April 6, 2020 by Snappy

[Erich Alfred Hartmann]

I'd rather pay a little extra to have a functioning software instead of alltogether stopping to use it at all because multiplayer once again is borderline unplayable for over the last month.

 

Clearly the current business model does not support a well maintained and evolving core simulation. If it did not for the last 12 years, it won't change now.

 

In my case, I don't play in multiplayer mode (I don't like or like online games in general). I like to play alone offline and in silence.

 

they want economic income?

 

Dcs world +FC3 = 65 euros (without subscriptions or anything unusual) that is ideal.

[sthompson]

But some Issues and bugs have languished for years and no one seems to care.

 

I don't know whether ED "cares" or not. But your perception that they do not seem to care likely is because they are sensibly focused on doing what makes money and thus organize their business priorities accordingly. Right now, no one pays for bug fixes, or for improving the core, and I'm betting that there is not much incremental revenue in bringing a module out of early access.

 

Incentives matter. If you want them to fix bugs and problems and finish modules that most people have paid for already then a subscription model is the way to go.