Jump to content

DCS World roadmap update


Kate Perederko

Recommended Posts

Kate,

 

 

How is the multiplayer section beeing tested?

Do they test the mulitplayer section as well? and on how big scale is it beeing tested ?

If they test it on routine base arent there things what you dont see what wont work after another patch / update?

MrMaverick

Pilot in the RAZBAM Harrier DIsplay Team

Mavericks Youtube: My Youtube Channel

Discord: https://discord.gg/MRU8m5m

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kate, I didn't realise this was an AMA thread, I just said thanks early on, but someone else touched on something important a few posts back around the EoL, or at least a new evolution of DCS.

 

I cannot help but think every year that goes by, you've acknowledged the inherited code's lack of clarity, and also the age and the complexity a few times already... possibly the worst thing to inherit as a dev manager, but I have to ask...

 

 

"Will there be a time when all this legacy code is put to rest and a new more sustainable and modern evolution of DCS can emmerge?"

 

 

Surely there are still the unit database and valuable things that can be re-used, but this engine, with it's inability to handle anything more than a square block ont he terrain, the single mission sortie mechanic, the lack of being able to change things after initial mission execution like inserting new farps, new client slots, changing warehouse data, all the things that progressive servers want to make campaigns on, these all strongly limit the ultimate DCS experience, so at some point your work reaches a point of craziness on the core engine, that the more you keep investing time on the old engine, the harder it gets to pull away from it as modern modules are designed on it.

 

 

 

There has to be a time when enough is enough, trying to unpick the past code heroes of ED that are no longer working for you, the legacy of DCS and it's ageing backbone, it just seems from the way I look at this (and I enjoy your teams code comments very much, my favourite one, --what does this do????) that it has to have an end before you get stuck permanently. Even if it took 5 years from scratch, it has to be better than another 5 years stuck with this engine...

___________________________________________________________________________

SIMPLE SCENERY SAVING * SIMPLE GROUP SAVING * SIMPLE STATIC SAVING *

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Kate,

 

This was originally posted to Reddit, however I was directed here to post questions.

 

After reading through the updated roadmap, I'm really happy to see an increased focus on core DCS improvements. I am however, a little concerned, as some of those core function improvements are intrinsic to many aircraft, especially the F-18 and F-16, which are slated for full release by the end of the year/Q1.

 

Both of their way/steerpoint systems' current implementations are effectively useless with any wind during missions, due to the way that they've incorporated Grid North vs Lat/Long, resulting in erroneous wind-corrected tracking for the HUD steering Cue and Tadpole.

 

Would it be possible to get clarification on whether these issues are being accounted for in the release timelines for the F-18/F-16, or whether the current implementation will be left "as is" until the core improvements can be re-addressed later down the road?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The open beta enables us all to be testers :)

 

You can but it's quite hard when you are working prettymuch blind. Like you know that something is wrong but you have no way to tell what causes it. Tacview can limit this issue a bit since you can analyze what you've seen in game but still does not provide any explanation for it. It also doesn't log everything like various systems.

 

In my opinion, testing is not mainly about finding an issue but also about isolating it. This of course means doing things that you can't do using your normal version of the game like for example temporarily replacing a system to return "known good" value to see if it's that system not working properly or if the issue is further down the line. Another example is setting the game to pause at a precise moment and stepping through the background tasks to see how things are being done even before they are presented to the end user in any form, down to observing variables in memory change.

 

These are just two most common examples of testing techniques, both useful in their own situations. I hope I've explained them in a non-programmer friendly way.

 

Testing is not about telling that an issue exist but about telling exactly why it exists.

 

edit: This doesn't mean that the reporting issues using the Open beta is not useful. It just means that someone else has to take the report and have a look at it with his "microscope" and that's the kind of tester that people are talking about here.


Edited by Tomas9970
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Check out https://www.mantisbt.org/. I'm working in the IT-sector myself and I'm asking some colleagues, maybe there will be some more ideas.

 

Mantis is already in use at ED :thumbup:

Simulatori: DCS A-10C II Warthog - DCS F/A-18C Hornet - DCS F-16C - VRS F/A-18E - 
HOTAS: TM Warthog - Cougar \ HP Reverb G2 \ WinWing Panels

Tally: I see the degenerate commie who wants to ruin our day.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kate, I didn't realise this was an AMA thread, I just said thanks early on, but someone else touched on something important a few posts back around the EoL, or at least a new evolution of DCS.

 

I cannot help but think every year that goes by, you've acknowledged the inherited code's lack of clarity, and also the age and the complexity a few times already... possibly the worst thing to inherit as a dev manager, but I have to ask...

 

 

"Will there be a time when all this legacy code is put to rest and a new more sustainable and modern evolution of DCS can emmerge?"

 

 

Surely there are still the unit database and valuable things that can be re-used, but this engine, with it's inability to handle anything more than a square block ont he terrain, the single mission sortie mechanic, the lack of being able to change things after initial mission execution like inserting new farps, new client slots, changing warehouse data, all the things that progressive servers want to make campaigns on, these all strongly limit the ultimate DCS experience, so at some point your work reaches a point of craziness on the core engine, that the more you keep investing time on the old engine, the harder it gets to pull away from it as modern modules are designed on it.

 

 

 

There has to be a time when enough is enough, trying to unpick the past code heroes of ED that are no longer working for you, the legacy of DCS and it's ageing backbone, it just seems from the way I look at this (and I enjoy your teams code comments very much, my favourite one, --what does this do????) that it has to have an end before you get stuck permanently. Even if it took 5 years from scratch, it has to be better than another 5 years stuck with this engine...

 

Amen!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can but it's quite hard when you are working prettymuch blind. Like you know that something is wrong but you have no way to tell what causes it. Tacview can limit this issue a bit since you can analyze what you've seen in game but still does not provide any explanation for it. It also doesn't log everything like various systems.

 

In my opinion, testing is not mainly about finding an issue but also about isolating it. This of course means doing things that you can't do using your normal version of the game like for example temporarily replacing a system to return "known good" value to see if it's that system not working properly or if the issue is further down the line. Another example is setting the game to pause at a precise moment and stepping through the background tasks to see how things are being done even before they are presented to the end user in any form, down to observing variables in memory change.

 

These are just two most common examples of testing techniques, both useful in their own situations. I hope I've explained them in a non-programmer friendly way.

 

Testing is not about telling that an issue exist but about telling exactly why it exists.

 

edit: This doesn't mean that the reporting issues using the Open beta is not useful. It just means that someone else has to take the report and have a look at it with his "microscope" and that's the kind of tester that people are talking about here.

I would be surprised if this level of access was given to a closed beta or alpha team, sounds more like I would expect an internal testing team to do from my experience.

AMD 5800X3D · MSI 4080 · Asus ROG Strix B550 Gaming  · HP Reverb Pro · 1Tb M.2 NVMe, 32Gb Corsair Vengence 3600MHz DDR4 · Windows 11 · Thrustmaster TPR Pedals · VIRPIL T-50CM3 Base, Alpha Prime R. VIRPIL VPC Rotor TCS Base. JetSeat

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I can only speak for myself, but ihmho you shouldn't follow that plan B. No matter what you do here, some people will be complaining. Release it earlier, but just for singleplayer and the MP crowd will think it's unfair. Delay it until both works and some SP players will be annoyed because they will have to wait for 'the others'. So you should do what suits you best. And you already stated that you don't want to split between single- and multiplayer. Plus it would cost you resources to make two seperate release that could be spent on improving the supercarrier for everybody. Saying this as a 99% singleplayer pilot.

 

Sincerely,

 

Bonzo pilotfly.gif

Hold on, you are talking about multi-player and single player as they are entirely different games, it's not like single player isn't accessible to multi-player pilots so why delay something that everyone has access to ? It'll be fair in a sense where everyone has access to the same thing...

Full fidelity su27/mig29 ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would be surprised if this level of access was given to a closed beta or alpha team, sounds more like I would expect an internal testing team to do from my experience.

Ok. I've messed up testing and debugging. Probably because I did both most of the time. Testing is about checking if the things are happening as they should and debugging is about trying to figure out why it's not the case. That's why they want subject matter knowledge and not programming skills.

 

edit: Also debugging is done by those woh write the code in the first place. How could I forget about such an obvious thing.


Edited by Tomas9970
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hold on, you are talking about multi-player and single player as they are entirely different games, it's not like single player isn't accessible to multi-player pilots so why delay something that everyone has access to ? It'll be fair in a sense where everyone has access to the same thing...

 

While this statement should never be used to make a determination of SP or MP. 80-90% of the challenge of operating from a carrier is coordination between all the different flights. Moving to the cats, lining up and waiting behind the JBD, handling of the jet on the deck is pretty flipping important. Situational Awareness is a must.

 

Here is my line of thinking, wrong as it may be, the entire purpose of the SC is multiplayer based. That's not to say that it should be used only in MP but that the core features that make this carrier different from the Stennis is the MP aspect. Having a Air Boss/ATC Human Controlled, LSO position, having more parking spots to allow more jet spawns without creating the ThunderDome. If you aren't using those features what makes it so much different from the Stennis. Yes yes, the animated deck crew, I knew you were going to bring that up.........what the hell difference does it make if you are alone on the carrier. Don't come at me with the F-14 not being able to launch, cause we still have not been given FIRM CONFIRMATION it will work when the SC is released. AI is DCS is about as retarded as it gets, so moving around with them on the deck is not always realistic. So who will see if you don't line up correctly on CAT1, who really gives a damn if you didn't raise your launch bar when the Shooter told you to.

 

All that being said, and again just my opinion, the only reason to demand SP gets the SC now vs when the bugs are worked out boils down to wanting to play with your new toy (rightly so, I must admit) and you want to play with it now, screw everyone else. Me, I already know what the first night on the Roosevelt will be like in VCAW-1........a certain someone will be yelling about nav and formation lights being on, some is going to roll their little hornet right off the roll down cause he forgot his wheel caulks weren't in place, all while the moose knuckles taxi just past the shooter and starts spreading his wings to hit the shooter in the head (which is absolutely pointless). The SC is all about MP for me, as that is where the actual fun lies. Just my opinion though. Having it in SP first, yea I don't see the point their. Don't yell at me about training for MP release either, cause you all know that's not how it will go down.

 

Have fun, let's blow some crap up, but for the love of grey skull calm down..........go wash your hands too. Very important that last bit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • ED Team
Kate,

 

 

How is the multiplayer section beeing tested?

Do they test the mulitplayer section as well? and on how big scale is it beeing tested ?

If they test it on routine base arent there things what you dont see what wont work after another patch / update?

 

New product: multiplayer tested by dev team, tested by internal QA, tested together by QA and dev team in play sessions, beta testers invited to test => OB.

 

Existing product: QA + beta testers.

 

The procedures depend on the product, usually with small missions because it's easier to get the bug.

 

And the code is tested by special libraries with scalability, load and stress testing, specific network testing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • ED Team
Kate, I didn't realise this was an AMA thread, I just said thanks early on, but someone else touched on something important a few posts back around the EoL, or at least a new evolution of DCS.

 

I cannot help but think every year that goes by, you've acknowledged the inherited code's lack of clarity, and also the age and the complexity a few times already... possibly the worst thing to inherit as a dev manager, but I have to ask...

 

"Will there be a time when all this legacy code is put to rest and a new more sustainable and modern evolution of DCS can emmerge?"

 

Surely there are still the unit database and valuable things that can be re-used, but this engine, with it's inability to handle anything more than a square block ont he terrain, the single mission sortie mechanic, the lack of being able to change things after initial mission execution like inserting new farps, new client slots, changing warehouse data, all the things that progressive servers want to make campaigns on, these all strongly limit the ultimate DCS experience, so at some point your work reaches a point of craziness on the core engine, that the more you keep investing time on the old engine, the harder it gets to pull away from it as modern modules are designed on it.

 

There has to be a time when enough is enough, trying to unpick the past code heroes of ED that are no longer working for you, the legacy of DCS and it's ageing backbone, it just seems from the way I look at this (and I enjoy your teams code comments very much, my favourite one, --what does this do????) that it has to have an end before you get stuck permanently. Even if it took 5 years from scratch, it has to be better than another 5 years stuck with this engine...

 

Thank you for your question. We are working on a new features multi-threading and integration of Vulkan API and some others that will give us the opportunity to change the world. It's about graphics.

 

The logic world... yes, we will stop one day and make it from scratch.

 

I think that with the community support and with the coming years we will be able to extend the team and achieve the strategic goals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Must be unprecedented to have the COO of a software company interact with its consumers.

 

It is really nice to see this interaction. Also, great to see you've learned from the release of the F16. Get the core stable and the rest can follow.

 

Cheers


Edited by BoneDust
spelling
 
 

Alienware New Aurora R15 | Windows® 11 Home Premium | 64bit, 13thGen Intel(R) Core(TM) i9 13900KF(24-Core, 68MB|  NVIDIA(R) GeForce RTX(TM) 4090, 24GB GDDR6X | 1 X 2TB SSD, 1X 1TB SSD | 64GB, 2x32GB, DDR5, 4800MHz | 1350W PSU, Alienware Cryo-tech (TM) Edition CPU Liquid Cooling  power supply | G2 Rverb VR

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • ED Team
Hi Kate,

 

This was originally posted to Reddit, however I was directed here to post questions.

 

After reading through the updated roadmap, I'm really happy to see an increased focus on core DCS improvements. I am however, a little concerned, as some of those core function improvements are intrinsic to many aircraft, especially the F-18 and F-16, which are slated for full release by the end of the year/Q1.

 

Both of their way/steerpoint systems' current implementations are effectively useless with any wind during missions, due to the way that they've incorporated Grid North vs Lat/Long, resulting in erroneous wind-corrected tracking for the HUD steering Cue and Tadpole.

 

Would it be possible to get clarification on whether these issues are being accounted for in the release timelines for the F-18/F-16, or whether the current implementation will be left "as is" until the core improvements can be re-addressed later down the road?

 

Hi Mikaa,

 

Thank you for your question.

 

If a feature is related to the core functionality it will depend on it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While this statement should never be used to make a determination of SP or MP. 80-90% of the challenge of operating from a carrier is coordination between all the different flights. Moving to the cats, lining up and waiting behind the JBD, handling of the jet on the deck is pretty flipping important. Situational Awareness is a must.

 

Here is my line of thinking, wrong as it may be, the entire purpose of the SC is multiplayer based. That's not to say that it should be used only in MP but that the core features that make this carrier different from the Stennis is the MP aspect. Having a Air Boss/ATC Human Controlled, LSO position, having more parking spots to allow more jet spawns without creating the ThunderDome. If you aren't using those features what makes it so much different from the Stennis. Yes yes, the animated deck crew, I knew you were going to bring that up.........what the hell difference does it make if you are alone on the carrier. Don't come at me with the F-14 not being able to launch, cause we still have not been given FIRM CONFIRMATION it will work when the SC is released. AI is DCS is about as retarded as it gets, so moving around with them on the deck is not always realistic. So who will see if you don't line up correctly on CAT1, who really gives a damn if you didn't raise your launch bar when the Shooter told you to.

 

All that being said, and again just my opinion, the only reason to demand SP gets the SC now vs when the bugs are worked out boils down to wanting to play with your new toy (rightly so, I must admit) and you want to play with it now, screw everyone else. Me, I already know what the first night on the Roosevelt will be like in VCAW-1........a certain someone will be yelling about nav and formation lights being on, some is going to roll their little hornet right off the roll down cause he forgot his wheel caulks weren't in place, all while the moose knuckles taxi just past the shooter and starts spreading his wings to hit the shooter in the head (which is absolutely pointless). The SC is all about MP for me, as that is where the actual fun lies. Just my opinion though. Having it in SP first, yea I don't see the point their. Don't yell at me about training for MP release either, cause you all know that's not how it will go down.

 

Have fun, let's blow some crap up, but for the love of grey skull calm down..........go wash your hands too. Very important that last bit.

 

Warning!! My opinion ahead:

 

 

Thanks for the reply, I totally see what you mean but I'm just really impatient for the carrier module as probably a lot of people who only play SP just like me (it's two thirds according to Kate though I don't know how much of them have bought SC), and if it doesn't take any supplementary time to do this, I'd still hope it would be released for SP first (so that everybody can play a bit with the module and try out stuff and also make the SP players happy) and then Multi-player would be released. Though this is pretty much only dependent of ED, I am sure SP release is the way I'd want it to go but if they think it is gonna take additional time to only release SP first and then launch MP late because of the time it took to make the first release then yeah, maybe it isn't the way to go for everyone, I don't know man, just my opinion again...

 

Ahh yes, also have fun too and stay safe

Full fidelity su27/mig29 ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...