2021 Supercarrier ATC/AI improvements.

[dorianR666]

4 hours ago, Nealius said:

I really wish ED would rework the comms system so that the option at the top of the list is the one your radio is tuned to, instead of ranking them by distance.

or really show only the airfields you are tuned to. selecting the others wont work anyway and they only take up space in the menu.

[pepin1234]

The Kusnetsov remain as simple as before or have received some improvement?

[Callsign112]

On 3/4/2021 at 11:19 PM, norman99 said:

Hi guys, I’ve a question regarding planned updates to the Supercarrier in 2021. Two areas that are in need of attention are the ATC comms and AI behaviour/interaction with user aircraft. I’m interested to know whether we will see any improvements this year.

 

In the official Jan 8 updates, the following was stated:
 

“Air Traffic Control (ATC)

Over the past year, our primary ATC focus has been on the Supercarrier. Now that the Supercarrier ATC system is nearing completion, we will next move on to airfield ATC radio communications....”

Does this mean we will receive an update to the Supercarrier ATC soon (ie 2021)? Will it be implemented prior to the airfield ATC improvements, which are obviously still a long way off?

The following was also stated:

 

Enhanced AI Behaviour

...Additionally, the new ATC and radio communications will demand a significant amount of AI engineering. This work is ongoing and will probably never really be finished but we do hope to deliver substantial enhancements during the latter half of 2021....

 

Current AI behaviour airborne around the boat is generally good when only AI are present. Unfortunately they seem to have absolutely no awareness of player/client aircraft, and hence it can quickly become a bit of a mess when a combination of both are present. As ED have frequently stated, single player ops is by far the most common in DCS (though definitely not the most vocal), and therefore AI interaction with player aircraft is most important. Can we expect an improvement in AI awareness around the Supercarrier this year as the above statement suggests?

 

Lastly, since the release of Supercarrier last year, and the initial updates that quickly followed, attention on this module seems to have largely disappeared. The current impression is it’s now sitting in the corner unfinished, collecting dust. From a commercial standpoint, it would seem ED have most likely backed themselves into a corner here. Most people who were/are interested in this module have already bought it, so future sales numbers just aren’t that high any more. Also, any further improvements from here on are complex and time consuming. The result is simply a very low return on any future product investment. Unfortunately this leaves us, the customers, out in the cold, having paid for a half finished module that no longer attracts the development attention needed to complete it. I realise ED have a huge amount on their plate at the moment, and the Supercarrier is just one small part of that, but releasing an update sometime in the near to mid future, would go a long way to reassure your customers that this module is still alive and improving.

 

 

This is a great post. Why? Because its logical. It makes sense. It is about a DCS world user, who after buying a modern jet fighter, and the Super-carrier module to go with it to complete the experience, he has concerns about the level of support these modules are getting and the speed of subsequent updates.

 

I don't own any jets in DCS world yet, let alone the Super-carrier, but I have noticed a person/persons here that seem to be intent on pushing the false narrative that ED is dividing its user base by not releasing the WWII Assets pack/Super-carrier modules for free. 

 

To propose that players are being locked out of MP servers because ED is in the business of selling the software it develops is obviously an argument without merit. The next time you are in a discussion with someone pushing the argument that ED is somehow dividing its MP community by restricting use of these products, ask him what he does for a living and if he would agree to work for free over the next 24 to 36 months.

 

If we want more content made available with more frequent updates, better frame rates with improved graphics effects, more accurate simulations of real world objects, improved AI logic and a more realist SIM in general, we have to support those high expectations with ownership of the modules we expect to use, regardless of whether we join multi-player servers or not. The only ones responsible for dividing this community and pitting its users against one another are the ones pushing this fake argument.

 

As a user, if you enjoy a particular DCS world module and would like to see further improvements, you can come to this forum and voice your concerns/desires to make the development team aware, or you can support the module and any future improvements with ownership. Why would anyone interested in high-fidelity simulation spend hundreds if not thousands of $ on a computer/monitor/HOTAS setup, $80 on a jet, and then spend untold amounts of time on a forum trying to convince the player base the Super-carrier should be free in MP game play? There is a logical disconnect here, and it has nothing to do with ED asking fair market value for its products. After getting past the computer/monitor/HOTAS/jet $ requirement, the Super-carrier is a fraction of the total cost, but such a huge part of the full experience. If the value of the experience the Super-carrier brings is visible even on YouTube, what does it say about the guy with the F18 that doesn't get it?     

 

 My question to the OP of this thread is whether he realizes that the long periods between updates is likely being affected by the confused negativity the fake argument places on this community. The best way to overturn that is to support the products you intend to use with ownership, and encourage those around you with similar interests to do the same. This is especially important if you use the products in a multi-player setting. Because no one is being locked out, they are just being ignorant.