Future Maps

[pyates2104]

As buggy as this software initial release has been ... We are all Beta Testers! Nevada should be our collective reward for suffering through the DCS A-10C growing pains!

 

Believe me, this is not buggy, if you want to see buggy, come round my office and I'll show you stuff a major technology company (who shal remain nameless) has inflicted on the unsuspecting public.

 

There were no "show stoppers", no endemic stability issues and no major performance problems. If I could count on that level of release, I could stop taking my tablets. :cry:

[Griffin-185th]

While as a Beta tester I'm a happy man knowing the Nevada map will be a freebie, it saddens me to think anything else will cost us.

 

I know it costs money to develop this stuff, but if talented public modders are preparing Afganistan and maybe others for free distribution, why can't ED do the same and help keep the sim fresh?

 

In particular it strikes me as a poor move from ED that though Nevada was included in the original beta, that the retail release doesn't have it, even though the cost is the same. Not a particularly fair move methinks.

[Bahger]

"Fair"?? Participants in the public Betas have no right whatsoever to demand or expect certain features be included in the sim. I'm looking forward to the Nevada map too, but if ED wants to include any item in the product, or not, that's their perogative, and if I want to buy the product, or not, that's mine. There is nothing remotely "unfair" about ED's decision not to put the Nevada map in the first release.

[GGTharos]

I know it costs money to develop this stuff, but if talented public modders are preparing Afganistan and maybe others for free distribution, why can't ED do the same and help keep the sim fresh?

 

Because ED isn't a charity. They do this for a living.

 

In particular it strikes me as a poor move from ED that though Nevada was included in the original beta, that the retail release doesn't have it, even though the cost is the same. Not a particularly fair move methinks.

 

The cost is not the same. Nevada was not in releasable shape when the release came around. Nevada is being developed largely in-house now and utilizing some new technologies, so it has to be paid for. When you realize things cannot fit into your schedule, you restructure.

Edited March 24, 2011 by GGTharos

[Temphage]

No, what' unfair is your illogical stance on the subject. I''ll bet any amount of money that if a less likable company like Microsoft or Ubisoft or anyone with a 'low' reputation did something like this, you'd be livid.

 

I have to agree it's bullshit that the price of the game went up $10, they advertised the Nevada map as a selling point, and then cut it from the game and are going to charge us for it. Why? Because I didn't buy the beta because I wanted a boxed copy. One of the main reasons I wanted the game was the Nevada map.

 

Then I find out it's going to be three months or more before boxed copies come out, *and* unbeknownst to me, I get an inferior product because of it. Tell me, why shouldn't I be upset?

 

http://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/index.php?end_pos=2452

 

This page up until very recently advertised the Nevada map on it. Now it doesn't, and I'll have to pay presumably an extra $12 or something, making this a $72 flight sim, versus the $60 I thought it was, versus the $50 DCS Black Shark was.

 

On top of it all, keep in mind that the theater we 'got' is still mostly just Black Shark's theater, so it's not like you can really argue we got anything new.

[Temphage]

When you realize things cannot fit into your schedule, you restructure.

 

Why release features when you can cut them and sell them later?

 

Because going down the path of price-gouging DLC is something we should all be defending. DCS: Horse Armor, anyone?

 

What's next?

 

DCS: Strike Eagle!

- DLC Data Link Pod with AGM-130s

- DLC JHMCS with AIM-9X support

- DLC Sniper Pods

- DLC WSO function

 

This wouldn't even be that huge a deal but they advertised the Nevada map, then pulled it EXACTLY in time for the game to release.

Edited March 24, 2011 by Temphage

[GGTharos]

Release something that isn't even in shape to pretend it's finished? Probably not a good idea.

 

Why release features when you can cut them and sell them later?

[Ptroinks]

You haven't suffered until you went through the Falcon 4 release.

 

The "wall of migs" bug was a classic :). Ahh... memories...

[Temphage]

Release something that isn't even in shape to pretend it's finished? Probably not a good idea.

 

Because you can't just pull it, finish it, and release it and say 'thanks for supporting our games', especially for people like me who bought it under the assumption that the Nevada map that was advertised as being a reason to buy the game, that is featured in screenshots of the game, was going to be pulled the day the game was 'released', I now have to pay extra for.

 

And we wonder why piracy is so commonplace on the PC platform.

 

Let me ask you this: If the Nevada map *was* finished for release, would we be playing it now? If so, why are they charging extra because *they* ran out of time?

Edited March 24, 2011 by Temphage

[Inseckt]

so it's not like you can really argue we got anything new.

 

I tend to disagree, but I dont know where to begin...

[MTFDarkEagle]

Temphage: Did you participate in the open beta?

[GGTharos]

So because they ran out of time, they have to charge extra for it? Quite the asinine leap of logic.

 

Because they require more time (man-hours, which have to be paid for) and because it will include new technologies, they will charge extra. The only assinine logic here is yours.

 

Especially since the couple of guys I know who were in the beta said that the flaws with it weren't really that huge a deal.

 

The guys who you know obviously don't know what's going on; nor do you. ED didn't advertize Nevada with the intention of pulling it and then charging for it. Nevada has become the focus of significant additional development.

[Snoopy]

Nevada has become the focus of significant additional development.

 

That makes me very happy!!!

[WarriorX]

Release something that isn't even in shape to pretend it's finished? Probably not a good idea.

 

If you had included it, then some would be ranting about how the Nellis Map was unfit for release and it made the whole product "inferior"....

[GGTharos]

Exactly correct Sir.

 

If you had included it, then some would be ranting about how the Nellis Map was unfit for release and it made the whole product "inferior"....

[Bahger]

This wouldn't even be that huge a deal but they advertised the Nevada map, then pulled it EXACTLY in time for the game to release.

No, they did not. They pulled it after the first Beta update and announced it, and their reasons for doing so, immediately and with full disclosure. That was about five months before the release.

 

I'd happily buy your copy from you and give it to an appreciative friend just to spare us all the misplaced moral indignation.

[mig29movt]

Please!!...I guess you never played Falcon 4, or Arma, now that was buggy! You haven't suffered until you went through the Falcon 4 release.

 

In all my years Simming, I have never seen a complex Study Sim release without bugs. I believe this is the most complex and detailed Sim yet to date, and logically the bug's scale with complexity.

 

What?? Arma? Buggy? Well, I felt that after the 16th patch the game was getting 0.5-1% better. :doh:

 

Seriously: If you were participating in the Open-beta testing of DCS A-10, you can honestly say that some of the betas were really buggy but the release version doesn't have more or less bugs than DCS: BS or FC2 has or had...

And with the new patch releasing tactic, that is about to improve a lot faster than before! :thumbup:

[luckybob9]

If people only knew how long it takes to make a map...

 

It is not like the Underpants Gnomes Theory nor is it as simple as building land and buildings. Elevation data is needed for the creation of the ground and satellite photographs are needed to create the textures. But not all textures from satellites look the same so you must blend/ equalize everything while keeping the colors true to reality.

 

You must gather data for EACH type of characteristic and there is no magical place that has all of this. You must hunt around searching many different locations and sources for solid data of River locations, Road locations, Railway data, Power line locations, Forest locations. Once you gather this data, you must implement it WITHOUT it conflicting with the previous data. In order for the TAD to work, you need to gather charts. Since the TAD has a zoom, you need to have multiple types of charts.

 

Then comes buildings. Create 100+ unique buildings, but wait, each building needs a LOD model. 2 LOD models per building gives us 300 unique models. But what about if it gets destroyed? 1 damage model per building brings us to 400 unique models that need to be created, at the minimum. Once the buildings are done you need to unwrap them, which is a lovely lovely job. Next you make them pretty with textures and insert them into the correct location.

 

This is all in a nutshell as there is more but it is a general idea of how its not so simple to create new terrain. Especially one that is official and going into a commercial product.

 

 

 

For those who dont know the Underpants Gnomes Theory:

Edited March 24, 2011 by luckybob9

[Temphage]

Not to make it sound overly simply but the US Geological Survey has done most of that work already. It's not as if you have to go gather it yourself.

 

And not to sound snarky but regarding the buildings, I would be more impressed if being near a modest-sized Georgian village didn't demolish my framerates into a soul-sucking abyss. Will the 'new' Nevada map change that?

 

I only ask, because with two GTX-460s and a 4.1 GHz i7, taking off from Tiblisi demolishes my framerate to single digits, and ground buildings in DCS: A-10 aren't *that* detailed to justify this incredible framerate hit.

 

Having an entire Las Vegas would be awesome except if a tiny town in Georgia is impossible to land and take off at, what will Vegas do?

[Smeghead]

Iran is the next logical choice. Afghanistan has no air force to speak of, just tribals fighting.

 

Iran is a potential powderkeg that would be spectacular to model. Hard of course and time consuming but putting the work and effort into a middle east theatre is worth it in the long run. There is always trouble going on there. The whole middle east gulf area is waiting to blow up.. Even throw Israel in there as well.

 

Then you'd have the map and data for years to come... Could use it for pretty much any upcoming game.

 

See if you can steal the data from F4 for South/North Korea as well while you are at it.. :)

[EvilBivol-1]

Nevada was originally a community project, which ED got behind with the intent of providing limited support with the goal of official inclusion into A-10C as a training map. However, as time went on the community effort could only get so far and eventually ED largely took over the project to bring it to a much more complete state and utilize new terrain mapping and rendering technologies being developed in-house.

 

The beta Nevada terrain may have been functional, but it was largely an empty landmass with some sections of populated, but still unoptimized terrain. You could argue that it was "good enough" for a freebie with release, but we believe the Nevada map has a lot of gameplay potential and deserves to be developed fully, even if this means we need to recoup the costs of development by offering it as an addon.

[Steel Jaw]

Training, weapons school, Red Flag, Green Flag....the real life A-10 weapons school is at Nellis...

 

I for one can't wait to have this released, will be nice to fly someplace other than Georgia!

 

HAAAAAWWWWGGGGGGG SMOKE !!

 

:pilotfly:

[Snoopy]

Nevada was originally a community project, which ED got behind with the intent of providing limited support with the goal of official inclusion into A-10C as a training map. However, as time went on the community effort could only get so far and eventually ED largely took over the project to bring it to a much more complete state and utilize new terrain mapping and rendering technologies being developed in-house.

 

The beta Nevada terrain may have been functional, but it was largely an empty landmass with some sections of populated, but still unoptimized terrain. You could argue that it was "good enough" for a freebie with release, but we believe the Nevada map has a lot of gameplay potential and deserves to be developed fully, even if this means we need to recoup the costs of development by offering it as an addon.

 

I'll get it free but I would happily pay for this map pack if I wasn't getting it....LOTS of potential. I can see V Squadrons participating in Virtual Red Flag missions stuff like that!

 

 

HAAAAAWWWWGGGGGGG SMOKE !!

 

:pilotfly:

 

That too :D

[andysim]

well its OT but Arma2 has more bugs than a Natural History Channel program about bugs =). But I still play it as its got something you dont get anywhere else.

 

If only they would streamline thier multiplayer and get rid of all the "rubberbanding" that you only get with Arma hehe.

[Steel Jaw]

In particular it strikes me as a poor move from ED that though Nevada was included in the original beta, that the retail release doesn't have it, even though the cost is the same. Not a particularly fair move methinks.

 

You need to research how software development functions in the real world. :thumbup:

 

I support ED's efforts: they are a small team. :smilewink: