Great review EinsteinEP. The screenshots were pretty damn good as well.

Go give your wingman an attack order with civ traffic on. Tell your wingman to hold position. Make a new flight plan and get ABRIS VNAV to work... [admin edit: let's be nice]

If that truly is the case why should people have to pay for the fix?

Good review, will probably pick this up down the road. Still bummed the training didn't get an upgrade though


I think the upgrade cost is justified, but as far as the "paying for a patch" argument goes, ED brought a lot of hate down on themselves by:

1. Calling it a patch...and a sequel; It's neither of those things. I agree that one should NEVER have to pay for a patch. To me, the term "patch" implies it's a fix for software that's currently bugged. I should never have to pay a developer to fix something they broke. That being said, BS2 isn't a patch, or just a bunch of bug fixes. Of course, it's not a full blown squeal either. Calling it both of those things* can be misleading.

2. Not telling us this was coming. By dropping the product on the community like this, there's bound to be more controversy. A heads up would have been nice. It's just very odd how this was launched.




*To me, calling it "black shark 2" implies squeal. It's more like Black Shark 1.5. Not a total overhaul, but a substantial one.

Yes, I suppose BS 1.5 would be more accurate, as would Flaming Cliffs 1.5 instead of 2.0, but it's a name not a real version number. After all, it's actually "DCS:A-10C with some updates and a flyable Ka-50 and no A-10C" and not Black Shark 1.03. Likewise FC2 was really "BS 1.02 without a flyable 50 and flyable planes from FC 1.12" and not FC 1.13.

However, it's their product they can call it what they want, as by any other name it smells the same.



The Jedi Master

At the end of the day all these issues with the marketing and political issues don't matter. If youre a real simmer what matters is the end result, the simulation, the immersion, the fun, and those times when you get #%&*$# scared when a Zu-23 that you missed opens up on you with fiery vengeance.

To put it simply, both DCS to me are now freakin awesome. I even purchased some TM MFDs since I now know I'll be playing it long term. They have announced their long term plans for FC3, DCS JTAC (combined arms), and Nevada will apply to all 3 as will JTAC so hopefully that will clear up future communication.

I agree wholeheartedly with this taipan.

Its not the cost, or the fact we have to pay for work, i don't have a problem with that. But what i am concerned about (agreeing strongly with frederf) that we have not seen any substantial bug fixes for the KA. Do i need to mention the dual hydraulics failures? Whats the point in having a back up hydraulics system if they both go at the same time all the time. Not to mention the myriad of other faults that we thought were going to be brought into this patch/upgrade/inbetween thing.

The other issue is, what happens to black shark one now? no more support ?

NOw they are tinkering with bringing out flaming cliffs 3 as a pay on. So what happens to 2, no support ?

And the big question is the fractured community. All these different version, all requiring a pay on upgrade. Its a bit of a mess to keep all of these at the latest version only to have zero support for the poor guys that don't want to.

Not entirely happy with the progression.

I mention all of this and quoted you above as dcs really shines on multiplayer. Surely there must be a better way for ED to get remuneration for their work and not so many fractured bolt ons.

I was hoping everyone would upgrade - eventually and it wouldn't be fractured. I disagree about being a mess, its progress forward. To keep the same engine forever is not going to last computers are getting better an better and things like Battlefield graphics are drawing away customers. I'm happy that it's progressing even if there are short term splits of multiplayer. I like the end result once my install is setup good I'm having fun.

Regarding dual hydraulics failures - its not something that's affected my enjoyment of it at all.

Seriously the complexity in these sims to have errors like this is something like 2% of the features modelled.
DCS remains to me the cleanest released set of sims, in that they are very playable from day 1 with no show stopper bugs for the majority.
Even A-10C in Beta was less buggy than many games gone gold.

But your opinion is valid, people with the old games may want support. But it's rare for a game maker to still do patches many years after release. Kudos to those that do such as the IL-2 series.

the dual hydraulics failure was only one thing. You may be happy with it, but i am not. I want the fidelity from it.

There are many things in the KA that we can't do due to broken items.
Sure if you are happy with the basics then you most likely won't take heed of the indepth items that make a simulator a simulator aside from a flight model and clickable cockpit.

But the fact remains. They are still there and will we have to pay again for them to be fixed ?


On the other issue, i have no problem with the sim moving forward. I can safely say that i think we we all want it to. However, it has moved a long way away from the core ideolgy that DCS was supposed to be a core base to where each flyable adds on.

At the moment everything is a stand alone release that may or may not tie in with all the other releases, no guarantee. This is not what was advertised or planned or advised to the public.

So, fair enough, if you only have one flyable then this route is not really an issue. Just pay to upgrade (with or without bug fixes) and all is hunky dorey.

However, if you like to have all the flyables, then you have a costly and a somewhat funky way of trying to keep all this together.

AkA, black shark version 10, with dcs version 9 with lockon version 6 with f-18 version 3 with f-18 version 4...... adnausium.

--------------

Don't get me wrong, i like the progress ED are trying to make, but unfortunately for me (a long time supporter waaaaaay back in the day well before DCS) I am not going to purchase any upgrades or any further flyables, until i understand where all this is moving to. When i find a common ground that i understand ED will take this then i will decide how many flyables i will purchase to obtain value for money and cohesion with further upgrades.

As an example. (instead of purchase all the flyables which is what i would have done). I can easily hold off an purchase the latest iteration every 4 years. Ok, i will only get multiplayer capability until next upgrade.... but hey ho... thats the price of fracturing.

Keep up with the times or get left behind. Sorry, that's real life for you. Every old software will be superseded and you can't expect a company to support an older product forever. Software companies don't work that way. Sure the older software will still work but there won't be any support for it nor will it be guaranteed to work with the latest features. So either you jump on board or get left behind.

RE: problems in BS - most have been fixed with BS2. I only had problems with the AI and that has been totally reworked. The AI is stellar in BS2, wingmen do things right, enemy units react realistically. It's much more fun and immersive.

What other 'many' problems are you talking about? I bet that what ED have done right far outweigh their bugs by a large, large margin. No software in the history of software will ever be bug free.

You won't buy anymore that's your prerogative. I'll buy whatever they release, flyables and all. You can stick by your principles and miss out while I have fun flying whatever aircraft they decide to release, provided the aircraft appeals to me ofc.

EDIT: Actually I'll buy whatever they release even though I don't like the aircraft and would rarely fly it. I'd do it to support them just like I bought all the aircraft + field mods for ROF. Even though flying WW1 crates is probably the lowest rung for me.