Jump to content

An Open Letter to ED


ceecrb1
 Share

Recommended Posts

First off. This is not meant as a rant or a complaining/offloading session.
Second. I expect backlash from fanboys. Fill your boots, we know how we feel and what experiences we are having.

I'm writing here representing a group of DCS pilots who met on a public server and have taken things so far as to all pitch in and build our own server which is connected to a symmetrical gigabit connection, we are all fully paid up users of warthogs, pimaxes, hp reverbs, 3090s, 2080ti's, physical helicopter collectives etc etc etc and have dedicated many hours of time to all aspects of the game, from flying, to mission planning, learning units and even god forbid, trolling, pissing about and having a laugh.

As a group we spend our time in a large variety of games but have always based the group and friendship on our original meeting place and "beloved" DCS.
The last 2 months, the server has been powered down. Before that, it spent nearly another 2 months not being used while running 24/7.
This is where we used to fly daily. Interspersed by other games, (cod, onward, project cars 2 etc etc, but always returning to dcs).

We all have ended up with the same feeling.
All that is left for us is new units and once you've gotten over the "ooo new and shiny!" It always ends up being the same, just a new unit in the same environment.

Again, this is not a rant, we do need to acknowledge the amazing work that has been done on so many parts of the game. (eg new clouds, was a long wait but worth it).
We just want the base game to get some attention.
No matter which mission we build or download, in the end we know exactly how it will play out. There's no "ai battle commander" moving things around as a surprise for example.
We spawn into aircraft on the other side of the map to the AI enemies and have to rearm and refuel with an RWR lock warning blaring in our ears, while inside a concrete bunker.
The locating lights under a tanker are NOT visible (who cares if they are "realistic" or not, you CANT see them in vr headsets).
The current fashion of new units needing us to rebind hotas's after updates. Stop it! just STOP.

These are a few minor examples.

The fact is that today's facebook post about a rebuilt aim120 radar just wound us up.
We see it (and many other things on the changelog when there are updates) as time spent obsessing over tiny fine details that really don't matter to 99.999999% of the people PLAYING dcs
Yes I said playing, we ARN'T fighter pilots, this isnt a training session where your nations military are going to call you up at the start of WW3 to "save us all" because you have 2000 hours in the DCS f16.

In short.
We loved this game and spent HOURS on it EVERY day.
Now we just see it as the same repetitive experience with the same basic base game that hardly gets 'love', improvements or fixes while we are getting spoon fed new units like they are distractions to cover up or hide the base issues.

We REALLY hope we can get back to DCS one day. Right now, we are sorry to say there is just nothing left for us after we all learned our favored units.

  • Like 9
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry, but a LOT of us DO want obsession over the fine details.  That is what makes this sim different from something like Arma.  And how do you know you won't need to be able to fly an aircraft one day?

But, yeah, there are a lot of bugs still that do need to be corrected, and we desperately need a Dynamic AI Engine (e.g. Falcon IV).

It all takes time.  I started playing this game when Black Shark first came out.  So many years ago.  Still watching it all come together.


Edited by 3WA
  • Like 16
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can definitely relate! It isn't one giant glaring flaw that is hampering DCS, really, but there are plenty of small annoyances. While individually these don't really matter all that much and are easily offset by some of the things that are really great, their sheer multitude and slow progress (in many cases it feels like none) in getting to them is becoming an ever more grave problem over time.

DCS is - and has always been - a bit of a scattershot in that there is not really a consistent time-frame or scenario with the modules, but the real issue that the same applies to problems and fixes really: there are some issues that keep being improved to truly staggering precision, while others are pretty much left 'as is' for years. Again, it's not a single 'game-breaking issue', but there are plenty of little things that oftentimes affect several modules or the world and thus end up appearing in almost every single mission played.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I

12 minutes ago, 3WA said:

Sorry, but a LOT of us DO want obsession over the fine details.  That is what makes this sim different from something like Arma. 

 

 

Agreed. I'm not a hardcore tech-flyer like many here, but I like that I have to catch up to the sim rather than wait for the sim to catch up to me. I like that there are still things I don't know how to do in every module I have bought. Always something new to learn and to do. 

I always want DCS to be smarter than me - granted, that's not much of a challenge - but I like having a techno-sim that offers the hardcore flying experience but lets me dumb it down so I'm not frustrated but still immersed and having a good time flying. 

 

As for repetitive, yes. It's airplanes going fast in the sky. But that's what I like about it. :smoke:

  • Like 4

Some of the planes, but all of the maps!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think I can somewhat see where you're coming from and I largely agree with it. I'd describe it as somewhat hollow.

Personally, one of DCS' biggest failings is that it's a mile wide but an inch deep, it lends itself more to being more flight simulator than combat simulator (there's a running joke that DCS should stand for Digital Cockpit Simulator).

Though stuff that'll hopefully improve on that is in the works.

When looking at various timeframes, I'll post my copypasta from the "Fixing the 'depth' issue" thread. But the overall sentiment is that I wish developers could agree on a particular era, get it reasonably flushed out, before moving onto something else, unfortunately the only place where era focus has happened is WWII (and even that's not perfect).

Spoiler
  • Early WWII has a single aircraft and absolutely nothing else (I-16)
  • Late WWII is possibly the most flushed out era in DCS with:
    • A fairly equal number of peer-to-peer BLUFOR and REDFOR modules, done to a similar level of quality, with more on the way.
    • 2 dedicated maps, with a 3rd on the way (though hardly anything for that map as of yet).
    • A dedicated asset pack, with plenty of vehicles and air defences, of course there's stuff missing (especially ships, but also a few US air defences)
    • The era where numerous new technologies came to first:
      • VT AA shells.
      • Completely overhaulled damage model.
      • Torpedoes (both aerial, surface and submerged launch, even if the latter 2 are somewhat broken).
      • Submerging submarines.
  • Early Cold War (1946 - 1960):
    • For full-fidelity modules you've got the F-86F, MiG-15bis, MiG-19P and a G.91R on the way.
    • Only ground units are exclusively REDFOR, with 2 air defences units (AZP S-60 and the ZSU-57-2), 1 tank (PT-76B) and 1 APC (MT-LB). That's it, there's absolutely nothing else apart from what you can recycle from WWII.
    • No map.
    • No naval assets.
  • Mid Cold War (1961 to 1975):
    • Only has 3 full-fidelity modules, 1 of them a trainer (F-5E-3, MiG-21bis and L-39C), though there is also the F-8J on the way.
    • Maybe a couple of AI aircraft (F-4E).
    • Quite a few REDFOR air defences, with the S-75M/SA-2d, S-125M/SA-3b, the upcoming S-200V/SA-5b, the 9K33M/SA-8b and the 9K31/SA-9a. There is also Rapier (though without Blindfire for the UK). We have a couple of REDFOR vehicles, though hardly any BLUFOR vehicles (can only think of the Land Rovers, maybe the Chieftain Mk.7/L and the Leopard 1A3), there are however a few REDFOR vehicles (T-55A, BMP-1, BMD-1, BTR-RD, BRDM-2).
    • No map.
  • Late Cold War (1976 to 1989):
    • Only the Mirage 2000C as a full fidelity module (and only just, our 2000C is 1989 at the earliest), though there is an early F-14A (suitable for pre 1994 missions) in the works, as well as an A-6E (variant depending, TRAM and WCSI fit here) and an A-7E. There is also a 9-12 MiG-29 in a 'hope-to' state. Here is where we also have the C-101, L-39ZA and the Mi-8MTV-2 and (without 9M120), the Mi-24P too (though it has Lipa removed). Finally, there's the Christen Eagle 2 and Yak-52 (though both unarmed).
    • All of the FC3 aircraft apart from the F-15C, and if you exclude R-77, the 9-13S MiG-29S.
    • There's a few more AI aircraft (mostly REDFOR - Tu-22M3, MiG-23MLD, MiG-25, Su-17M4).
    • The majority of air defence systems: MIM-23B I-HAWK PIP Phase 1, Rapier FSA for the UK, Roland 2, Gepard, M163A2 (?) and MIM-72G for BLUFOR; for REDFOR we've got the 2K12M3/SA-6b, S-300PS/SA-10b, 9K35M3/SA-13, 9K37M1/SA-11, the 9K38/SA-18 (though uses the 9M342 missile of the 9K338/SA-24 from the mid 2000s) and the 9K330/SA-15a.
    • The majority of REDFOR ground vehicles, and a few BLUFOR ground vehicles.
    • 1 map (Caucasus) (?) - though is wholly unsuitable for BLUFOR vs REDFOR Cold War missions.
    • The majority of REDFOR naval assets, but only HB's unreleased Forrestal for BLUFOR.
  • 90s:
    • Heatblur's current offerings: the AJS 37 and the current Tomcats (though with LANTIRN the Tomcats are late 90s/early 2000s), there's the J-11A too and there's also possibly the A-6E (depending on what variant HB does) as well as a few more AI aircraft (namely the Tu-160). Here's is also where the Ka-50, Gazelle and the WIP Bo-105PAH-1A1 fits.
    • There's a few more air defences present (Patriot PAC-2, 2K22M/SA-19).
    • Probably the majority of BLUFOR ground vehicles as well as a few more REDFOR.
    • We finally have a map (Caucasus) but it's only really suitable for the 1991-1992 South Ossetia War and the 1992-1993 War in Abkhazia.
    • The remaining REDFOR naval assets (excluding the CAP naval assets, and the Pr. 636 Improved Kilo). There's also the Type 148 Tiger-class [La Combatantte IIA], given that it's a later fit (TRS 3050 Triton-G, Racal Cutlass B1 ESM, Racal Scorpion ECM.
  • 2000s:
    • For modules we have the most popular BLUFOR modules: A-10C, F-16CM and the F/A-18C (the F-14A/B reaches into here too). The F-15C fits here, and so does the 9-13S MiG-29S with the R-77, the AH-64D Block II and the MB.339A MLU will also fit here.
    • There's a couple more AI aircraft (namely the F-15E).
    • There are only 3 more air defence systems, that being NASAMS II, the HQ-7b Self-Propelled and the 9K338/SA-24.
    • The rest of the BLUFOR naval assets, as well as the CAP naval assets.
    • As for maps from a purely pedantic perspective, there aren't any that strictly fit here, though most payware terrains could be made to fit around here as well as the Marianas, even if they are generally newer (only one I'm unsure about is Syria).
  • 2010s:
    • For modules we have the later A-10C, AV-8B N/A, the Eurofighter Typhoon and the GREENFOR JF-17. There's also the OH-58 and technically the Mi-24P but only due to the removal of Lipa, otherwise we would have a Mi-24P from the 90s (though only from 9M120 Ataka, without 9M120 we would have a mid 80s Mi-24P, just missing Lipa - this aircraft is rather unique in that it really hasn't changed much since it was produced, only thing I'm unsure about is engines).
    • We have maybe a couple more AI aircraft (namely the Su-34)
    • A few more ground vehicles (ZTZ96B, ZBD-04A, T-72B3 and BTR-82A).
    • Here are where the SoH/PG, Syria and Marianas map strictly fit around, though this is arguably more pedantic.
  • And finally onto the 2020s:
    • Only the Eurofighter Typhoon (seeing as it's a Luftwaffe Typhoon, but being heavily teased with the MBDA Meteor, which only entered Luftwaffe service in 2021) and absolutely nothing else.

Obviously succeeding decades/eras will carry-over plenty of assets and modules from previous decades/eras, but hopefully you can see the problem.

There are a fair few things I take issue with though:

1 hour ago, ceecrb1 said:

The locating lights under a tanker are NOT visible (who cares if they are "realistic" or not, you CANT see them in vr headsets).

People who care about having assets that are realistic, that's who cares.

Now sure, you could make the argument for 'ease of access' settings with regards to VR, if it's that bad.

1 hour ago, ceecrb1 said:

The current fashion of new units needing us to rebind hotas's after updates. Stop it! just STOP.

How is the game supposed to know exactly how you want your buttons without your input?

And how long does it really take to bind your HOTAS for a new module, especially when you really only have to do it the once.

1 hour ago, ceecrb1 said:

The fact is that today's facebook post about a rebuilt aim120 radar just wound us up.
We see it (and many other things on the changelog when there are updates) as time spent obsessing over tiny fine details that really don't matter to 99.999999% of the people PLAYING dcs

How do you know what 99.999999% of the people playing DCS care about or not?

And seriously, the whole point of this is to get as accurate to reality as feasibly possible (written right there in its product description), and to provide high fidelity simulation (again, where possible); I really, really, don't get people who get "wound up" when something along those lines actually ends up happening. Kinda like me voluntarily jumping into a swimming pool knowing full well I'll get wet, only to complain about getting wet.

Also, I'm not convinced that this would've caused a significant delay on whatever you or I'd like to see.

1 hour ago, ceecrb1 said:

Yes I said playing, we ARN'T fighter pilots, this isnt a training session where your nations military are going to call you up at the start of WW3 to "save us all" because you have 2000 hours in the DCS f16.

And...? What's your point?

You're still playing something whose goals are realism, people have this idea that realism and game are necessarily mutually exclusive, just because it isn't a real world military training session doesn't change anything.


Edited by Northstar98
  • Like 6
  • Thanks 1

Modules I own: F-14A/B, Mi-24P, AJS 37, F-5E-3, MiG-21bis, F-16CM, F/A-18C, Supercarrier, Mi-8MTV-2, UH-1H, Mirage 2000C, FC3, MiG-15bis, Ka-50, A-10C (+ A-10C II), P-47D, P-51D, C-101, Yak-52, CA, NS430, Hawk

Terrains I own: Syria, The Channel, SoH/PG, Marianas

System (RIP my old PC): Dell XPS 15 9570 w/ Intel i7-8750H, NVIDIA GTX 1050Ti Max-Q, 16GB DDR4, 500GB Samsung PM871 SSD (upgraded with 1TB Samsung 970 EVO Plus SSD)

VKB Gunfighter Mk.II w. MCG Pro, MFG Crosswind V3 Graphite

Dreams: https://uk.pcpartpicker.com/list/bG9bBc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

sorry the updates are not fast enough for you, since u already know the things ur asking for are coming, im presuming.

 

hes a interview that will come discussing some of those things like core of game that will also be a huge game changer.  gotta thank the private hosted mp servers for doing a incredible job over the years making things feel alive and fun 24/7.


Edited by will-
  • Like 1

Intel i9-9900K 32GB DDR4, RTX 2080tiftw3, Windows 10, 1tb 970 M2, TM Warthog, 4k 144hz HDR g-sync.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The core players in the community have been saying for a long time that the "core" game is really long in the tooth and they are 100% correct. 

Once you get past the glitz and glam of the latest bomb or missile added to the latest module the fact that DCS is missing REALLY BASIC stuff like.

MP mission planning tools... Or DTC's to transfer those plans to planes one way or another (and I mean beyond the planes with a DTC, every plane in MP should be able to scrible down a flight plan on a paper map, and tell the crew chief how to fuse weapons). I mean I gotta say the recent "line drawing" video was probably the most exciting vid from ED I've seen in a year or more.

Any set of coherent weapons for a given decade (i.e. Prior to the GBU31 I guess bunker busting bombs didn't actually exist in NATO (nope thats sarcasm they did, we just don't have em))

Any set of coherent assets for a given era. And for example while I love the SA5 and NASAM additions recently, we really need more of that with simpler/stupider weapons, like adding something like a SA7 or redeye could be a simple lua edit. But really its the ships, or lack therof that really hurts DCS "naval adventures".

And then there are the systematic issues which the new "news" on the Aim120 underscores. Rather important things like Radar or Missile updates are pushed out willy nilly with no regard for the state of the rest of the sim, i.e. the 120 will now be on the new shiny API, while every other Fox3 is on some older version of the API. I mean what about the R-77, has it even gotten the same CFD treatment as other missiles, I mean what version of the API is it even on? How about the SD10, I guess it uses the current Aim120 guidance scheme, so will it be copied over? And then there is the beloved phoenix... 

I mean some of these things may not matter much to offline players, but for anyone doing multiplayer and PVP (Things that make DCS shine IMO) its a constantly frustrating mess of, and the most popular refrain isn't what the new patch will bring, its what did ED break now and how will we have to "Fix" the server to make it playable and balanced again.


Edited by Harlikwin
  • Like 7
  • Thanks 2

New hotness: I7 9700k 4.8ghz, 32gb ddr4, 2080ti, :joystick: TM Warthog. TrackIR, HP Reverb (formermly CV1)

Old-N-busted: i7 4720HQ ~3.5GHZ, +32GB DDR3 + Nvidia GTX980m (4GB VRAM) :joystick: TM Warthog. TrackIR, Rift CV1 (yes really).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am deprived of DCS until my GPU and or system are fixed or I get new one. These open letters never really accomplish anything except create stress and bad blood. I refrain from them.

AI in DCS could use improvement so that AI units, air , ground, and naval, adhere to a doctrine, with tactical decisions based on a doctrine. 4 TU-22M3 on a mission from Mozdok to attack Tbilisi and Vaziani, would not do so at 35000 at afterburner 100% of time, and ECM all the way to and from weapon release. Their escort would likewise adhere to reasonable tactics. THey would pick their way through mountain valleys, using ridgelines as terrain mask, pop up to launch altitude, launch, then turn away from defensive threat. DCS AI would just fly them on a beeline from waypoint to waypoint, often CFITing . Friendly AI wingmen, especially in AV-8Bm use fuel at substantially higher rate then player. AI threat , flying with standard simplified flight model, and no GLOC for AI, doesn't present realistic approximation. Player is constrained by accurate flight model, and GLOC.

ED may consider adding a concept of 'package' to OCA, DCA, and interdiction missions. Taking example of Backfires. TU-22M3 would be escorted by SU-24M configured for SEAD, and SU-24MR for ECM and reconnaissance support during mission. Backfires and Fencers would be escorted by SUs or Migs  As a matter of practical real world tactics, RUssian Federation Air Force (RuAF) has demonstrated using high altitude MIG-31BM as bomber escort, and using SU-34 as air-air missile trucks (over Syria). US+NATO has used concept of strike package since before Vietnam. Israeli raid on Osirak reactor in Iraq during 1981 (Operation Opera) , used a strike package of F-16A carrying MK-84, with F-15A providing air-air escort, for F-16s and KC-130 or KC-135 tankers, with unknown ECM support.

DCS represents, IMHO, a Cold War and early POst CW1 era world of late 1980's, 1990, early GWOT, and OIF from 2001-2005. That was the time when ground , air, and naval forces in NATO, but also in former Soviet Union, used doctrine of Air-Land Battle, slightly expanded to Air/Sea-Land Battle. Army FM 101-1,5,10 manuals for staff officers. Russian term , I believe, translates to Combined Arms Land Warfare.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Northstar98 said:

 

Personally, one of DCS' biggest failings is that it's a mile wide but an inch deep, it lends itself more to being more flight simulator than combat simulator (there's a running joke that DCS should stand for Digital Cockpit Simulator).

 

Well, I think kind of has to. Now I'm not arguing with you, I enjoyed your post. But I think it has to be a flightsim first, otherwise all else kinda falls flat.

Now, I'm looking at this fresh off a 6000 kilometer round trip, at 37,000' no less. I was surprised we were that high. I thought 30 to 32k' was standard. The point being that so much of it is the small details about flying; your ass falling asleep after 2000k, it's really loud, it's confined, and the view is just freaky. 

Maybe I'm not even sure what the hell my point is. But I am definitely looking at DCS with a fresh eye after a long flight. And after hours of looking at the window, checking out the geographic features and (somewhat psychotically) mentally planning out on LGB runs on those farms way down there, I'm liking what DCS is offering as far as the flight simulator part of it goes. And I do fly it often just as that.

 

That's it. I'll go back to my beer. :drinks_cheers:

  • Like 3

Some of the planes, but all of the maps!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Beirut said:

I

 

Agreed. I'm not a hardcore tech-flyer like many here, but I like that I have to catch up to the sim rather than wait for the sim to catch up to me. I like that there are still things I don't know how to do in every module I have bought. Always something new to learn and to do. 

I always want DCS to be smarter than me - granted, that's not much of a challenge - but I like having a techno-sim that offers the hardcore flying experience but lets me dumb it down so I'm not frustrated but still immersed and having a good time flying. 

 

As for repetitive, yes. It's airplanes going fast in the sky. But that's what I like about it. :smoke:

Totally agree. I mean if you want to talk repetitive, most military pilots spend huge blocks of their career doing the same thing, taking off, flying around and landing. If they are lucky these are interspersed with a short periods of actual combat. But just the mundane enjoyment of flying the aircraft is a large part of the fun for a lot of people I think. 🤷‍♂️

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Mower said:

People who complain about VR slay me, they are on the same list as people who complain their Ferraris  run a little rough.

The people that play VR can actually compare every other game or sim to this and form an opinion. I mean DCS not terrible at this point IF you have top end hardware, but when literally EVERYTHING else out there is running at 90fps+ without breaking a sweat on that hardware, and DCS is is half that or less it tells you something. And I know they are working on it, the newsletter about multicore stuff was a breath of fresh air, but its alot easier to write a newsletter than to deliver on VR, which is hard.

 

  • Like 1

New hotness: I7 9700k 4.8ghz, 32gb ddr4, 2080ti, :joystick: TM Warthog. TrackIR, HP Reverb (formermly CV1)

Old-N-busted: i7 4720HQ ~3.5GHZ, +32GB DDR3 + Nvidia GTX980m (4GB VRAM) :joystick: TM Warthog. TrackIR, Rift CV1 (yes really).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, ceecrb1 said:

First off. This is not meant as a rant or a complaining/offloading session.
Second. I expect backlash from fanboys. Fill your boots, we know how we feel and what experiences we are having.

First rule of communication of an opinion you think might be meet with opposition on an internet forum is not insult those people in the second line of your post. I hate the word fanboy, its too easy to suggest a person happy with something is somehow doing it for our appeasement. Our customers that love and continue to support DCS do not need names, no more than someone not happy with the current state.

6 hours ago, ceecrb1 said:

I'm writing here representing a group of DCS pilots who met on a public server and have taken things so far as to all pitch in and build our own server which is connected to a symmetrical gigabit connection, we are all fully paid up users of warthogs, pimaxes, hp reverbs, 3090s, 2080ti's, physical helicopter collectives etc etc etc and have dedicated many hours of time to all aspects of the game, from flying, to mission planning, learning units and even god forbid, trolling, pissing about and having a laugh.

This is one of the most valuable assets of DCS World IMHO, bringing like minded people together to enjoy something. And a group with a completly opposite impression of Eagle Dynamics and DCS World can have the very same experience.

6 hours ago, ceecrb1 said:

We all have ended up with the same feeling.
All that is left for us is new units and once you've gotten over the "ooo new and shiny!" It always ends up being the same, just a new unit in the same environment.

I am going to assume by new unit you mean new module, I hope this isn't the wrong assumption or else my replies will not make sense in some places. I can agree that some modules cover some of the same aspects of other modules, and in that sense you can have a been there done that feeling at times, but its hard not to get that as these weapons are all meant for a similar purpose.

6 hours ago, ceecrb1 said:

Again, this is not a rant, we do need to acknowledge the amazing work that has been done on so many parts of the game. (eg new clouds, was a long wait but worth it).

We appreciate the acknowledgement of the work we have done, and we agree, many of these things are a long time coming, but also, with the team size and dedication we have, they generally are coming as fast as they can.

6 hours ago, ceecrb1 said:

We just want the base game to get some attention.

Hmmmm, you just thanked us for some base game additions, as well. We have many in works and have never really stopped. We had new AI units all the time, we are working on many more. We have additions to the core in the way of ME QoL improvements like the upcoming Drawing tools, we are working internally on improved AI not only for aircraft but ground units, we are working on performance, etc. Nothing comes as fast as anyone wants them, that said, the come as fast as we can manage them.

6 hours ago, ceecrb1 said:

No matter which mission we build or download, in the end we know exactly how it will play out. There's no "ai battle commander" moving things around as a surprise for example.

This will always be somewhat of a problems for scripted missions. Especially ones you built yourself (you cant write a book and then have a surprise ending), I found that before I started working with ED that I was looking at scripts and such to randomize events, and make them more dynamic where I could, its possible but a lot of work. This is why our work on a Dynamic Campaign is so important... ugh I know I said the DC word, stop talking about it, give it to us already. Its just an incredible large scale project, its mind numbing what's going into it. It will be worth the wait I am sure, but the wait sucks for anything. Until then, explore what you can do in the ME, and even what you can do outside of it, I am sure you have, but it sounds like you might be missing something there.

6 hours ago, ceecrb1 said:

We spawn into aircraft on the other side of the map to the AI enemies and have to rearm and refuel with an RWR lock warning blaring in our ears, while inside a concrete bunker.

A bug report with tracks is much more helpful here. I know there are a lot of major servers out there, have you reached out to find their work arounds, and again, have you reported, or added to a report about this issue on the forums?

6 hours ago, ceecrb1 said:

The locating lights under a tanker are NOT visible (who cares if they are "realistic" or not, you CANT see them in vr headsets).

Is there a bug report for this, what settings, what equipment do you use. Have you added your info to a bug report? I know there are issues with draw distances on lights, but this could be something else, if you have a report you need me to look at, I would be happy to.

7 hours ago, ceecrb1 said:

The current fashion of new units needing us to rebind hotas's after updates. Stop it! just STOP.

Again, I assume you mean modules, and in EA modules this is not uncommon, its not something we can change but we do try and reduce it. I would love to say we can just stop it, but as a module develops, somethings change, and if that change involves bindings, well, it has to be done. I dont hear of it being that often as you make it sound, but I could be wrong. All I can say here is I am sorry for the inconvenience, but it can be the nature of EA.

7 hours ago, ceecrb1 said:

The fact is that today's facebook post about a rebuilt aim120 radar just wound us up.
We see it (and many other things on the changelog when there are updates) as time spent obsessing over tiny fine details that really don't matter to 99.999999% of the people PLAYING dcs
Yes I said playing, we ARN'T fighter pilots, this isnt a training session where your nations military are going to call you up at the start of WW3 to "save us all" because you have 2000 hours in the DCS f16.

What wound you up? The weapons dev team, or the F-16 dev team are not able to just switch over to a core issue. A programmer is more than just a programmer, a weapons programmer needs to program, but also needs to specialize in those weapons and understand how they work and don't work, and be able to translate that to the sim, that same person doesn't know how to put that to work on effects or some other core issue for the most part. We have teams, they do specific things with their skill sets, they might be able to jump from a module to another, but jumping from a module to say a dynamic campaign programming just doesn't happen in general (that's not to say some of our guys cant, but generally they cannot).

Also not every update we give will thrill every DCS customer, do you think that the guys flying tha Fw 190A-8 were thrilled to hear about AMRAAM updates? Probably not. 

7 hours ago, ceecrb1 said:

In short.
We loved this game and spent HOURS on it EVERY day.
Now we just see it as the same repetitive experience with the same basic base game that hardly gets 'love', improvements or fixes while we are getting spoon fed new units like they are distractions to cover up or hide the base issues.

We REALLY hope we can get back to DCS one day. Right now, we are sorry to say there is just nothing left for us after we all learned our favored units.

New modules are the life blood that pay for the development of the entire game. Without new modules, there is no core work at all. The people working on new modules, as I said, are generally not working on the core. There are a lot of cool things coming for the core, but simply put, they are complex and take time. Things like better ground interaction and reaction to damage and enemy fire will help the variables of missions, so will a dynamic campaign system, but the mission editor is quite complex, and in many cases you can miss tricks to make your missions come even more alive, even myself see things all the time that I didnt think of that make missions more dynamic. 

I am sad to hear you guys are burnt out on the current state of DCS, we do hope you return, but help us help you, you said that this post wasnt a rant, but without supporting files, logs, tracks, much of the issues, if not already reported, are hard to track and look at. So this does become a but of a rant. 

We are working on every aspect of the game, again, not as fast as anyone would like, but nothing is being left behind or forgotten. Somethings take longer than others, and this is where we are at in this sandbox called DCS World.

Thanks.

  • Like 19
  • Thanks 2

SigDCSNew.png
Forum RulesMy YouTube • My Discord - NineLine#0440• **How to Report a Bug**

1146563203_makefg(6).png.82dab0a01be3a361522f3fff75916ba4.png  80141746_makefg(1).png.6fa028f2fe35222644e87c786da1fabb.png  28661714_makefg(2).png.b3816386a8f83b0cceab6cb43ae2477e.png  389390805_makefg(3).png.bca83a238dd2aaf235ea3ce2873b55bc.png  216757889_makefg(4).png.35cb826069cdae5c1a164a94deaff377.png  1359338181_makefg(5).png.e6135dea01fa097e5d841ee5fb3c2dc5.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think they should just take a year off making something new and just focus on bug fixes, like the beam spill of the mig 29 STT being 180° wide apparently and reaching approximately 50 astronomical units. Or the AWACS having a lovely talk to us with 0% downtime telling us all about every enemy aircraft 500 miles away nonstop and in FC3 you can't even tune the radio to stop the blasted thing from spamming the airwaves with the useless rant instead of giving relevant information about nearby air threats ONCE and when we ASK for it. Again we are stuck with 3rd party overlord bot, made by fans for free in just a months at most. There are numerous bugs that make no sense or at least in relation to each other such as damage for anti ship missiles having huge discrepancies despite them being approximately equal in warhead size and tech. Such issues require literally 60 seconds of work to fix by opening some lua file and editing a number and yet they persist through the years and years and years.

Secondly we pay ED for developing this software for us, yet we are given the tiniest bit of information about what is actually being done. My opinion is that they need to re consolidate, restructure, sharpen their tools and get the kinks out and then work on the stuff that binds everything together.

For example: Why are weapons that the AI use different from the weapons that players use. Why is the GBU-12 on the A10 different from the one on the F18 in code? It shouldn't be. It's literally the same piece of kit. It multiplies workloads. Copy & paste is not a valid design pattern. Whenever there is a bug fix, do ED implement a unit test to prevent regression? I don't know, I doubt it. Do they use version control? I don't know. I hope so. Sharpen the tools, then work on the quick to fix things that have been around for years. Go through the bug repots, create tasks for each, organize and consolidate and fix.

Leave the stuff that works alone until the stuff that doesn't work is working. I agree. A better Aim 120 logic is nice. But they work in principle. Other things do not work or don't make sense yet. Those are priorities. Because those things don't require months and years of research and asking subject matter experts and having bureaucratic legal discussions. It's plain logic, UX, tweaking values to be logical and engine work. Once you made them logical using common sense (ie. no mig 29 spikes from 500 miles away through a concrete bunker), you can then work on making them accurate to the real word.

After the quick stuff is done, work on the big things that apply to all modules. ATC, DTC + Mission planner (outside ME), IFF, COMMS.

We were promised ATC for multiple years. Whenever we ask it's like "we work on it, it's complicated, there are 2 time periods and lots of countries". NO. Screw that. You can do it incrementally. If the russians in WW2 use modern, english ATC until the russian WW2 ATC is done then that's 50000% better than what we have now which is basically "I wanna land" - "ok". We get no updates, we get no information and when we do get something it's "coming later", where later is always 1 year ahead. What are you? Developing a fusion reactor, because that meme was reserved for that?

We were teased DTC a year ago. Not a single word since.

We were promised comms and are still stuck with 3rd party software to do it for you and even when eventually put in, it was just basically voice chat for the side, not filtered through the radios using frequencies, ranges, line of sight and effects. When a 3rd party program by fans can do it so well, including terrain masking and range effects, why can't we have that in game where the data is available instead of accessed through an API? Because it isn't perfect? I don't know the reasoning. It doesn't matter it's not perfect or 100% realistic. It's something. It's working. If fans can do it, then why can't you?

 

Yes, all those things take time, but not centuries. I would understand it if we were given a reason why our money is not put into those things. Instead we get shiny new things, and I understand that. Shiny new things make lots of money, and I love shiny new things as much as the next guy.

So yes. Please just stop with the shiny new things, work on API, work on values, work on UI, work on the engine. I would've taken ATC over volumetric clouds. I would've taken IFF over high poly Caucasus. And yes I would've taken systems damage and countermeasures on ships over the apache.

But those things aren't shiny new things that make people buy lots of modules. So I guess they don't matter.

Of course all of that is just the opinion of some guy who is really impressed with how DCS can look so good, simulate in such detail but then horribly fail at seemingly the simplest things that have been proven to be doable in a reasonable time frame by people who don't even have access to all the tools, and for free at that and/or that have been around in similar software for for decades. I only want things to be better.


Edited by FalcoGer
  • Like 3
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, ceecrb1 said:

First off. This is not meant as a rant or a complaining/offloading session.
Second. I expect backlash from fanboys. Fill your boots, we know how we feel and what experiences we are having.

I'm writing here representing a group of DCS pilots who met on a public server and have taken things so far as to all pitch in and build our own server which is connected to a symmetrical gigabit connection, we are all fully paid up users of warthogs, pimaxes, hp reverbs, 3090s, 2080ti's, physical helicopter collectives etc etc etc and have dedicated many hours of time to all aspects of the game, from flying, to mission planning, learning units and even god forbid, trolling, pissing about and having a laugh.

As a group we spend our time in a large variety of games but have always based the group and friendship on our original meeting place and "beloved" DCS.
The last 2 months, the server has been powered down. Before that, it spent nearly another 2 months not being used while running 24/7.
This is where we used to fly daily. Interspersed by other games, (cod, onward, project cars 2 etc etc, but always returning to dcs).

We all have ended up with the same feeling.
All that is left for us is new units and once you've gotten over the "ooo new and shiny!" It always ends up being the same, just a new unit in the same environment.

Again, this is not a rant, we do need to acknowledge the amazing work that has been done on so many parts of the game. (eg new clouds, was a long wait but worth it).
We just want the base game to get some attention.
No matter which mission we build or download, in the end we know exactly how it will play out. There's no "ai battle commander" moving things around as a surprise for example.
We spawn into aircraft on the other side of the map to the AI enemies and have to rearm and refuel with an RWR lock warning blaring in our ears, while inside a concrete bunker.
The locating lights under a tanker are NOT visible (who cares if they are "realistic" or not, you CANT see them in vr headsets).
The current fashion of new units needing us to rebind hotas's after updates. Stop it! just STOP.

These are a few minor examples.

The fact is that today's facebook post about a rebuilt aim120 radar just wound us up.
We see it (and many other things on the changelog when there are updates) as time spent obsessing over tiny fine details that really don't matter to 99.999999% of the people PLAYING dcs
Yes I said playing, we ARN'T fighter pilots, this isnt a training session where your nations military are going to call you up at the start of WW3 to "save us all" because you have 2000 hours in the DCS f16.

In short.
We loved this game and spent HOURS on it EVERY day.
Now we just see it as the same repetitive experience with the same basic base game that hardly gets 'love', improvements or fixes while we are getting spoon fed new units like they are distractions to cover up or hide the base issues.

We REALLY hope we can get back to DCS one day. Right now, we are sorry to say there is just nothing left for us after we all learned our favored units.

Thank you, 100%

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

First off, thank you to all who spent the time to read and reply.
There have been some comments we agree with, and some we disagree with. That's just the nature of the beast.
Like said at the start of the initial post, we were communicating our feelings and experiences. Others have differing opinions and experiences and that's fine.

We are just as a community burnt out. There's nothing left for us.
Just 2 nights ago we had a nearly 2 hour chat about how we'd spent YEARS dreaming of the apache. Now it's on presale, none of us have paid for it. It's hard to say why, but we just all collectively feel like there's "no point".

A broad sweeping reply to some of the themes in replies.
To those insisting it's all about a perfect simulation of reality:
How do you measure how close it is to reality when you have very likely NO experience of what reality is. ED "could" make the aim120 react any old way they like and make a facebook post saying they've tweaked it to some document they've gained a copy of, when really its all made up, and we'd be none the wiser (not saying thats been done or going to be done, just an example of how we truly have NO idea what the actual reality is for us to compare it against). Is it all just "bragging rights" that "the sim I fly at home is the most real?

For those who say being a fighter pilot is repetitive and boring, I can respond the other way. How many fighter pilots get an air to air kill, or even fire a missile in anger? How many ai aircraft have you shot down in 2 hours of DCS, let a alone a week. You cant pick and choose which parts are "like the real job" to suit. The whole experience of DCS is the "fighter pilot fantasy" for us grown ups with money for decent gaming rigs and hotas's. Why is it so embarrassing or painful to admit that? In our group we admit and own it and have a laugh about it.

For filling out bug reports etc.
This comes back to the long running never ending argument that we the user base are pushed towards using the open beta as most servers run this. Yes we started our own and were free to chose, but then we decide to visit others, rolling back or upgrading, or dedicating ssd space to 2 installs.... not so much fun.
The end result is that it feels like us, the paying customers who just want to play a game, have the experience of being unpaid testing staff. Forever filling out forms, uploading logs and investigating crashes and tweaking settings or changing drivers on system just to keep DCS happy, when all other games (or work software) just happily keep on working day in day out without the need to spend hours reading articles online to fix issues, sign up to their forums or discord groups like we do here.

RE the aim120 facebook post. It's less about the work done. Hats off to the guys, seriously sounds like some complicated code.
More about the project management and tasks being handed out. In simple "why do that when there are so many simple issues that have been around for years still to fix!?!"

Again, in short.
We don't like the feeling of spending money on modules (yes I wrote units in the original thread, oops). To feel like we have a shiny new gleaming unit, is a muddy broken environment and UI.
As stated by another poster. Our VR experiences in other games just can't compare with DCS. The fact that some get upset they don't own VR or fly in DCS in VR for whatever reason doesnt make our VR experiences invalid. A lot of the "marketing" and pull of dcs to get new people in is the VR element....
As a group our experience is that after so many years, we know where every ai is coming from and how it will react. Yes so many missions are scripted stories. But even with some of the VERY well built missions for online multiplayer, there was an attempt to build in randomness but they are all just a selection of spawn points of the same selection of units.
Hell just having the ability to create a MASSIVE area on a map and say "randomly spawn from this list of ground or air units, in random values of quantity with random values of ability, static or with random tracks towards enemy area to follow, up to X value of units alive at a time". It wouldnt be controlled or "realistic" battle ground but with fog of war on would at least break from the same old script, would involve hunting for enemies and you wouldnt shoot down the same old SU27 and know to turn to a certain bearing because the next one always "spawns over there at fl X".

Hopefully see you all again in a couple of years. Untill then I'm sorry to say, our server will remain cold and dark.
Right or wrong, agree or disagree, as a group, with DCS we've learned all we can learn, experienced all we can experience and we feel it's not because of us not trying hard enough but rather there being nothing left to gain, when we feel like their could be.

*engine shutting down and canopy opening noises*
 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Weapon performance is a core DCS feature, not module specific. The Aim-120 is one of the most commonly used missiles in the game. If it does not perform well, why do you think 99.9999% of the player base does not care?

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, BarTzi said:

Weapon performance is a core DCS feature, not module specific. The Aim-120 is one of the most commonly used missiles in the game. If it does not perform well, why do you think 99.9999% of the player base does not care?

I think the point is, the Aim-120 may not be perfect but it works ok-ish to reasonably well(its not like it isn’t already one of the most capable missiles in-game) while lots of other things do not work at all or are working very badly. So why make the Aim-120 even more realistic instead of bringing the other things or at least one of those to an ok-ish level?

It’s like why spent effort on adding a completely unneeded cow 3d model instead of fixing the legacy Minecraft-looking F-4 or Tu-95, S-3 ,whatever 3D models? I really don’t get those development decisions either..

Regards,

 Snappy 


Edited by Snappy
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So I was going to reply very quickly, but held off until this point to see some of the replies. A few I'll address directly as leveling the full weight of the responses on the mass isn't fair, as they will be a little pointed, and then give my 2p on the overall picture. 

@3WA- "And how do you know you won't need to be able to fly an aircraft one day?" And how do you know he hasn't? And there is a big difference in being able to do the whole sticking your hand up to say "Yes, I can fly a plane" in an emergency on a commercial flight (which I would say some of us could if there was no other person with any kind of skill onboard), and what @ceecrb1is meaning (or at least what I take from his meaning). And it feels like you are in that camp - the ones I call "The Russell Casse Crew". Those who are learning the absolute minutia on the off chance that President Bill Pullman gives a rousing speech, and you can put your hand up and say "Yes Mr Pullman, I can 100% cold start an F/A-18 if I can borrow one from the remaining units in the USMC that still fly them. Oh - you only have the Super Hornets on this air force base. Ummm.....ok...I'll take the AV-8...oh.....umm.......F-14....bugger"

@Mower- VR isn't that exactly unaccessable. The headsets aren't super expensive if you stay at the entry level. Sure we can't all afford Pimax, but your barbed comment here screams of sour grapes. Sure we aren't all running around on Pimax's, and if you start at the entry point, a machine that can run DCS, can run it in VR providing you have a half decent graphics card (2060 or above will do). And it's not "like a Ferrari running a little rough", in DCS it's more like "Why is this running on 3cyls, when 2 minutes ago, I had 12cyls? I have done nothing yet it's broken." I love flying in VR for the immersion, that snap your head round and see the plane closing behind you, the geniune horror as you are flying with friends, barrel roll around their helicopter to fly face first into another friend who was obscured by the intial helicopter with a scream followed by stunned silence and an apology. The moment where you are so immersed in VR that you are flying at night and flip you NVG goggles up, to then realise you are starting at your desk and computer becuse you naturally flipped the thing on your head like NVG's...except it was your VR headset. Or the simple joy of going on a flight about the map with those same friends in formation. But when so many other VR games run at 60 (or more) FPS as more demanding AAA titles, to have DCS decide that you are getting 20 because it's rendering EVERY SINGLE SQUARE RIVET on a carrier in every minutia of detail (including ones we can barely see) and 2 player F-14's, is jarring. In a game here most the supporters are all about the realism, we don't need the best rivet graphic, we need the gameplay, the immersion and the depth to warrant the expense we go to. 

@NineLine- some fantastic selective hearing on display. Good example is that you recognise that a group got together to build their own little community, but then massively gloss over that this small community got so fed up of the constant minor bugs, that the server got powered down. And I'd wager that is the same for some of the other big public groups. Take Grim Reapers for example, their Stoneburner server used to be busy all the time, and now is noticeably quieter, with some old faces moving off, and fewer coming in. With other matters, you are (somewhat condescendingly I might add, which also is an overriding tone in your entire reply) asking "well submit a bug report". As @FalcoGermentions, the fact that the AI units somehow have DUGA OTH radar fitted that also can lock you up while stationary in a bunker, cold, through 2 mountain ranges, and from the far side of Proxima Centauri, is not a small bug, and to then say "well I'm sure you can reach out to get help from someone else", smacks of a corporate "not our problem" response. "new modules are the lifeblood of the game" - no, having players and modules that work are the lifeblood of the game. Without player having modules that they feel are worth buying, that are worth their hard earned money, then it will dry up. I was vocal about the Mosquito not being in the free trail, and now having tried it, I'm glad I got to try and decide not to buy it. Something as simple as how it's not possible (certainly as of when I tried it a week or so ago) to bind both engines to one axis to control throttle input - clearly the only people who matter are those with Winirpl Hogthruster with twin inputs are hallowed enough to fly this aircraft - meant it's an instant hard pass from me. We need the small things sorted, not to have a constant stream of "Look over here, Shiny" stuff. Things like pretty much every aircraft seems to have entirely different versions of the same modules (AIM-120 for example, and the examples raised by @FalcoGer, or the way that some aircraft can pull target and waypoint items on the fly from the F10 map, yet others just can't). Remember the immortal words of great Colin Chapman - "Simplify, then add lightness" - in this case, have the basic functions and items all sharing the same core code, not a different code for every damn item on every damn aircraft, because it means that you end up with different ways of doing things that vary massively between airframes in the game. Plus, bonus, it will make your lives as developers easier, and as players we get a more unified experience (heck, maybe even more FPS for those of us in our "Ferrari" headsets). Yes, it's a sim, but it is, at the end of the day a game. A game that is no fun, gets left behind. And more and more DCS is less fun.

 

In general, I have put a lot of time and money into the game, between hardware to run it, and the time to get to the point of familiarity with enough systems to let me whizz around and drop bombs, lob missles, and scream around the map. But having to deal with things like Jester being as much use as a shaved chimp, and struggling to lock the same MiG-29 who locked up my aircraft from the far edge of the Milky Way when my F-14 was but a collection of loose parts in Grumman's parts bins, just isn't fun. The production cycle that is well described as "a mile wide and an inch deep" is driving people away. People need to be the ones who can objectively hold back and not just throw money at module because "OMG IT'S NEW", and the game needs to turn to "lets make the stuff we have better" not throw down a new module. I was excited for the AH-64, but now hesitant. I was excited for the F-15E, but it seems to be stuck in the DCS meme of "it'll be here in two weeks", i.e. "manyana, manyana". 

Will I still fly, sure, sometimes. Maybe on a private server that might be spun up again, or maybe on somewhere like Acrobatics Online or Stoneburner, but it will be more from nostalgia than from a burning urge to play DCS. Will I buy more airframes? maybe, if it is compelling and complete enough, but it will be a very very measured decision. It will be the occasional experience, over the "go to game". Because as much as I love the airframes I have, the little niggles that are being mentioned, and have been for some time, are the G-load that have broken this F-14's wings.

 

*hits CRTL-E three times*, fires up Onward in VR, and awaits "the other flying simulator" to release their "Top Gun" pack [names semi-changed to protect the innocent, because I know that the ED team don't like us mentioning competing products].  

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Snappy said:

I think the point is, the Aim-120 may not be perfect but it works ok-ish to reasonably well(its not like it isn’t already one of the most capable missiles in-game) while lots of other things do not work at all or are working very badly. So why make the Aim-120 even more realistic instead of bringing the other things or at least one of those to an ok-ish level?

It’s like why spent effort on adding a completely unneeded cow 3d model instead of fixing the legacy Minecraft-looking F-4 or Tu-95, S-3 ,whatever 3D models? I really don’t get those development decisions either..

Regards,

 Snappy 

 

You can't really say that. The Aim-120 overhaul started months ago. In it's current state, it is incomplete and that affects the PK of the Aim-120 in DCS world. That will obviously benefit ED's future missile development plans. I'm sure they will move to other missiles in the future once the 120 is complete.  

Well, since you asked about the cow... ED made a post a while ago about what it takes to create an accurate 3d model of an AI unit, which I suggest you read. It takes more or less half a year of work for them to make one accurate model. It's much easier to make a cow, which is why there's a cow in the game instead of an F-4.


 


Edited by BarTzi
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, BarTzi said:

Weapon performance is a core DCS feature, not module specific. The Aim-120 is one of the most commonly used missiles in the game. If it does not perform well, why do you think 99.9999% of the player base does not care?

I remember flying another sim way back when and occasionally looking in on DCS to see what it was all about. I remember seeing these loooong list of fixes posted regularly, like:

-Paint chip vector impact on AIM-9M below 3G turn

-Astounded thrust now properly modeled on Mi-8

-Cup holder in Harrier fixed, coffee unobstructed by MFD on Caucasus map

...and on and on and on and on and on.

 

I always wondered what the hell are these people on about? Now I know and I heartily approve and DCS is 95% of my flightsimming. 

  • Like 2

Some of the planes, but all of the maps!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Snappy said:

It’s like why spent effort on adding a completely unneeded cow 3d model instead of fixing the legacy Minecraft-looking F-4 or Tu-95, S-3 ,whatever 3D models? I really don’t get those development decisions either..

Regards,

 Snappy 

 

ED has continue update and added new 3D models. In the last years, include 2021, the old Lomac/FC has been remade, rebuild, to math by the new quality standars. About the F-4, Tu-95, S-3 and others, some on them has on progress.

Quote

 

AI Units

New and Updated assets

Because DCS World is built on a project spanning almost two decades, some units now show their age and will be updated throughout the year. It is also important that we add new units to better fill the battlefields. Here are some of the items that we intend to create or update in 2021:

Large Aircraft: B-52H, Tu-95MS, Tu-142, B-1B, IL-38, and Tu-160

Carrier Aircraft: S-3B and SH-60B

Ground Units: M1A2, AMX-56 Leclerc, Wespe Sd.Kfz.124, KS-19 100mm ADA, Son-4 “Flap Wheel” radar, C1 Ariete, Pantsir SA-22 “Greyhound”, and S-300/SA-10 “Grumble”.

 

Some of them has appears on Wags videos, and the S-3B (the ASW carriedborne), has on active develop, by Chizh on the russian forum. A remade or new 3D models, take years to develop, as was explained on the BTR-80 and new infantry document posted by ED weeks ago. Innecesary 3D models, always have a funtionality and not have a waste of time.


Edited by Silver_Dragon
  • Like 1

More news to the front

Wishlist: ED / 3rd Party Campaings

My Rig: Intel I-5 750 2.67Ghz / Packard Bell FMP55 / 16 GB DDR3 RAM / GTX-1080 8 GB RAM / HD 1Tb/2Tb / Warthog / 2 MDF / TFPR

 

DCS: Roadmap (unofficial):https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=116893

DCS: List of Vacant models: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?p=4076891#post4076891

21Squad DCS: World News: https://www.facebook.com/21Squad-219508958071000/

Silver_Dragon Youtube

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, NineLine said:

This is why our work on a Dynamic Campaign is so important... ugh I know I said the DC word, stop talking about it, give it to us already. Its just an incredible large scale project, its mind numbing what's going into it. It will be worth the wait I am sure, but the wait sucks for anything. Until then, explore what you can do in the ME, and even what you can do outside of it, I am sure you have, but it sounds like you might be missing something there.

By the amount of work going into it, I suspect DCE will end as a paid module. Which I totally support. So many mandays spent on a project should not be given away for free, IMO.

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 1
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, ceecrb1 said:

First off. This is not meant as a rant or a complaining/offloading session.
Second. I expect backlash from fanboys. Fill your boots, we know how we feel and what experiences we are having.

I'm writing here representing a group of DCS pilots who met on a public server and have taken things so far as to all pitch in and build our own server which is connected to a symmetrical gigabit connection, we are all fully paid up users of warthogs, pimaxes, hp reverbs, 3090s, 2080ti's, physical helicopter collectives etc etc etc and have dedicated many hours of time to all aspects of the game, from flying, to mission planning, learning units and even god forbid, trolling, pissing about and having a laugh.

As a group we spend our time in a large variety of games but have always based the group and friendship on our original meeting place and "beloved" DCS.
The last 2 months, the server has been powered down. Before that, it spent nearly another 2 months not being used while running 24/7.
This is where we used to fly daily. Interspersed by other games, (cod, onward, project cars 2 etc etc, but always returning to dcs).

We all have ended up with the same feeling.
All that is left for us is new units and once you've gotten over the "ooo new and shiny!" It always ends up being the same, just a new unit in the same environment.

Again, this is not a rant, we do need to acknowledge the amazing work that has been done on so many parts of the game. (eg new clouds, was a long wait but worth it).
We just want the base game to get some attention.
No matter which mission we build or download, in the end we know exactly how it will play out. There's no "ai battle commander" moving things around as a surprise for example.
We spawn into aircraft on the other side of the map to the AI enemies and have to rearm and refuel with an RWR lock warning blaring in our ears, while inside a concrete bunker.
The locating lights under a tanker are NOT visible (who cares if they are "realistic" or not, you CANT see them in vr headsets).
The current fashion of new units needing us to rebind hotas's after updates. Stop it! just STOP.

These are a few minor examples.

The fact is that today's facebook post about a rebuilt aim120 radar just wound us up.
We see it (and many other things on the changelog when there are updates) as time spent obsessing over tiny fine details that really don't matter to 99.999999% of the people PLAYING dcs
Yes I said playing, we ARN'T fighter pilots, this isnt a training session where your nations military are going to call you up at the start of WW3 to "save us all" because you have 2000 hours in the DCS f16.

In short.
We loved this game and spent HOURS on it EVERY day.
Now we just see it as the same repetitive experience with the same basic base game that hardly gets 'love', improvements or fixes while we are getting spoon fed new units like they are distractions to cover up or hide the base issues.

We REALLY hope we can get back to DCS one day. Right now, we are sorry to say there is just nothing left for us after we all learned our favored units.

100% supported! This has been a long time experience for me..

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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