So I bought DCS Black Shark the second it came out and spent weeks downloading it in Iraq every time I visited a FOB with internet (Godbless download managers)

Anyhow, i got to fly her for a month or so and then my computer puked, finally got a new rig that will run it proper again and low and behold theres a BlackShark 2 now......

So i download it, install, boot it up, go to do a quick action to see what I can remember and BOOM "Enter Serial Key"

so I enter my BS serial......."incorrect key"

Wait, so the Black Shark Upgrade download is something I have to PAY for???......so you mean DCS supported Black Shark to all of 1.0.2 and then rerolled a "new" title that is the same title (more or less, I mean come on the upgrade uses the BS:1 files) and they want me to pay $29 for it?

Sorry, I'll go back to EECH for good before I spend another dollar on a company that supports a product for all of 2 patches and then does a "major patch" and calls it a new product......

Did the LockON guys go through this crap?

Well, even software developers have to pay rent and eat. If you don't think the new content is worth the money, stick with BS1, it's still a top product. Lock-on had several additions which you had to pay for. I can understand your frustration though, when money is tight even 30 bucks hurts.

-C-

Upgrading comes down to personal choice, of course, and if you don't feel BS2 is for you then why not consider ED's other offerings?

If none of them interest you then wait a bit for the next un-named ED DCS product or one of the new third party developers to release their aircraft.

It'll probably be twelve months or so before we see much of the new stuff but it'll all integrate with the new DCS world (as I understand it).



I'm sure not everyone is happy with the way sims and DLC is evolving. The world of PC simming has changed a lot over the last two or three years. In terms of combat sim quality I think we're in a new golden age. Just got to pay for it!

The original Black Shark was released in April of 2009. There has been a lot of development of DCS in the last three years, which is offered in the BS2 upgrade.


List of changes between Black Shark 2 and Black Shark v.1.0.2:

Improved graphics:

- High Dynamic Range (HDR)
- Cockpit dynamic shadows
- Soft self-shadows
- Tree shadows
- Normal maps
- Animated cirrus cloud layer
- 3D and transparent water
- Low altitude clutter
- Improved airbases
- Improved FARP texture

Improved sound

- Implemented surround sound support.
- Many new and revised sound samples provide a more rich and accurate audio environment.

Improved gameplay

- Network compatibility with DCS: A-10C Warthog.
- Ability to take-off from ships (ships pitch and roll depending on wind strength (sea state)).
- AI radio traffic can be heard when tuned to the correct radio frequency.
- Mission Briefing and Debriefing available in-flight.

Expanded theater of operations

- The map now covers terrain further east to include the region of South Ossetia, center of the 2008 conflict between Russia and Georgia, as well as additional Russian and Georgian territory. The newly covered area provides a variety of terrain types, 5 new airbases, highly detailed cities, and a number of radio navigation beacons.

Mission Editor improvements

- Group properties interface that allows for in-depth AI scripting of a variety of behavior options, such as waypoint or trigger-based task execution, rules of engagement settings, readiness states, attack conditions, orbiting and holding points, etc.
- Ability to lock either arrival times or travel speeds for AI routes.
- Ability to copy and paste groups
- New ground group formation options
- Improved trigger menu interface includes cloning, trigger re-ordering, and OR rules.
- 32 new trigger conditions and 19 new triggers actions.
- Ability to set AI aircraft to spawn at mission start, but delay start-up.
- Added Abkhazia and South Ossetia factions.
- New active ground units:
----- 9B11 Mortar
----- Variety of armed stationary objects (house, barracks, blockpost, tower)

Mission Generator

- The mission generator utilizes a wide collection of force templates placed throughout the map to generate a randomized mission based on the player's desired mission location and options. Force templates can be edited and created within the Mission Editor.

Improved AI

- Helicopter AI (HAI)

----- When analyzing a tactical situation, the HAI will take in account all threats, not only the target that the HAI is engaging.
----- If it's possible to engage targets from a safe distance, the HAI will not fly close to threats.
----- If it appears that the HAI is not at a safe position, for example too close to enemy air defenses, the HAI will fly away from the threat(s) and then start engaging targets from safe a distance.
----- If it appears impossible to engage targets from safe distance, the HAI will make only one short attack (one missile launch / rocket salvo or cannon burst per run) from maximum range of that weapon and then break away to make a new attack if required. This reduces fire effectiveness, but greatly increases HAI survival when engaging targets with cannon or rockets.
----- HAI will not hover in an unsafe location.
----- If high-priority targets are screened by low-priority targets that make it impossible to attack high-priority targets from safe distance, the HAI will attack low-priority targets first to break the screen. In other words, if you have line of enemy APCs and tanks at 4 km and enemy AAA and SAMs at 12 km, the HAI will engage those APCs and tanks first. No more flying over the enemies' heads.
----- Jinking defensive maneuvering has been added. When flying in the WEZ of AAA, tanks, and APCs, the HAI will fly at high speed and jink. Of course, HAI will not jink when aiming at a target.

- Plane AI (PAI)

----- AI-fighters will now always try to launch AA missile when the target has entered into its no-escape zone. However, AI-fighters will fire missile immediately if it appears the fighter is losing first-launch superiority.

- Ground Unit AI

----- Ground units are able to cross streams.
----- Ground units will by-pass destroyed bridges and seek alternate routes.
----- Ground groups will disperse when attacked.
----- Some ground groups will pop smoke when attacked.
----- NVG capability was removed from MANPAD SAMs.

Dynamic weather

- Dynamic weather conditions can be set for the mission based on a number of weather fronts and pressure differentials. Winds and cloud formations are calculated dynamically during the mission based on the fronts settings. This makes it possible, for example, to see precipitation in one part of the map and relatively clear skies in another.

New or improved 3D models:

- Air units
----- A-10A
----- A-10C
----- An-26
----- An-30
----- C-130
----- E-2
----- E-3
----- F-15C
----- F-15E
----- KC-135
----- L-39
----- Mi-8
----- Mi-26

- Ground units

----- 9S80 radar vehicle
----- HEMTT TFFT fire-fighting truck
----- LVTP-7
----- Patriot SAM site units
----- SA-11 SAM site units
----- SA-3 SAM site units
----- Russian infantryman

- Naval units

----- Pr. 1241.1 Molniya
----- Ticonderoga-class cruiser
------ Oliver H. Perry-class frigate

- Other

----- Fuel tank depot

Active Pause

- The active pause feature allows you to pause the simulation, while continuing to work with cockpit controls.

Campaigns

- A new 15-mission campaign features a variety of missions with some randomization elements and voice-over messages. The campaign takes places in the South Ossetia region and is very loosely based on the 2008 conflict between Russia and Georgia.
- Updated and improved Georgian Oil War campaign.

GUI

- Added sliders to control tree and ground clutter draw distances.
- Added software Multisample Anti-aliasing (MSAA) settings.
- Added an exporting function to the Input Options menu to export all mapped command to a text file.
- Added Misc. tab with various game options, including view restriction options for multiplayer.

List of primary changes between Black Shark 2 and A-10C v.1.1.0.9:

- Player controlled Ka-50
- Ka-50 cockpit in improved and more efficient EDM format
- Dynamic cockpit shadows
- Adjusted rotor effects for the Ka-50 flight model
- Network compatibility with DCS: A-10C Warthog
- Improved helicopter AI (HAI):
----- When analyzing a tactical situation, the HAI will take in account all threats, not only the target that the HAI is engaging.
----- If it's possible to engage targets from a safe distance, the HAI will not fly close to threats.
----- If it appears that the HAI is not at a safe position, for example too close to enemy air defenses, the HAI will fly away from the threat(s) and then start engaging targets from safe a distance.
----- If it appears impossible to engage targets from safe distance, the HAI will make only one short attack (one missile launch / rocket salvo or cannon burst per run) from maximum range of that weapon and then break away to make a new attack if required. This reduces fire effectiveness, but greatly increases HAI survival when engaging targets with cannon or rockets.
----- HAI will not hover in an unsafe location.
----- If high-priority targets are screened by low-priority targets that make it impossible to attack high-priority targets from safe distance, the HAI will attack low-priority targets first to break the screen. In other words, if you have line of enemy APCs and tanks at 4 km and enemy AAA and SAMs at 12 km, the HAI will engage those APCs and tanks first. No more flying over the enemies' heads.
----- Jinking defensive maneuvering has been added. When flying in the WEZ of AAA, tanks, and APCs, the HAI will fly at high speed and jink. Of course, HAI will not jink when aiming at a target.
- New, 15-mission Ka-50 campaign "Medved-2"
- Updated and improved Georgian Oil War campaign
- New voiceovers for Russian radio entities
- Abkhazia and South Ossetia factions to the ME
- Abkhazia and South Ossetia borders to the ME map
- A number of unit skins for Abkhazia and South Ossetia
- Flag Equals, Flag Equals Flag, and Flag Less Than Flag trigger conditions
- Group MSG (message), Group SND (sound) trigger actions
- Animated cirrus cloud layer
- Higher resolution textures for a number of ground objects
- Improved smoke effects
- Improved FARP texture
- Updated GUI manual

Let me add on to what evil bevil wrote.

Yep its had some improvements (improvements that were always planned). Its ED's right to charge for it fair enough.

But the kick in the teeth part of it was that ED knew they were going to charge for it, and they didn't mention a single word to the community about charging for it until the day it was released for a price. Not one single word!

Then ED come out and said that they can't do a core sim world with bolt ons (like they were supposed to). And upgrading exisiting packages to bring them in line with the latest releases will cost money for the extra development.

But looky looky chooky. they are now builing a core sim world with flyables as bolt ons (that they said they can't) and now its supposed to be the way they originally intended.

There is no confirmed reports if you will have to pay for upgrades to bring in line your current purchases to the DCS world or how they will continue to charge for each addon and subsequent upgrade.

So for me, i was pissed that i, a devoted fan and promoter of DCS wasn't fit a simple email or community post advising the direction ED was taking.

So, for me, if DCS kept me in the loop, i wouldn't be pissed. I would have bought all add ons and i would know the direction they are taking.

Instead, i have not bought anything further and i am saving money by not upgrading my computer. When i am happy in the clarity of the direction and cost involved to me as a consumer to enjoy their product, then i will splash out again with a possible solitary purchase and take it from there.

Its a shame, because i really really love their sim.

For me, ED would have a lot more of my money if they gave a little customer/support service.

Rant over.

As you mention, this was always the plan ... what happened inbetween the plan being announced and executed internally will be something for people to wonder about, I guess



I don't understand how the availability of A-10C and BS2 modules for DCS:World that work with your existing install key (unless you have the upgrade version of BS2 - right now it does not work with DCS: World, but that will be sorted later) constitutes some sort of unconfirmed report of something or other. I think it's pretty much confirmed that you don't need to re-purchase either A-10C or BS2. DCS: World is free, and it comes with a single flyable (the Su-25T) but no multiplay; you might say it serves as a demo, as well as a platform to create missions on a separate PC without having to pay for another copy of DCS: Your Favourite Module.



Yep, and Jim Mack posted that there was some sort of breakdown in communication internally that caused this to happen and apologized for it.



I don't know how much you have kept up with current events, but do have a look, there is a lot of stuff happening.

Thanks grey,

I am definitely keeping an eye on it.

Yep the early supporters of ED got the shaft with the paid BS1 -> BS2 "upgrade" ... patch
and now to rub salt in the wounds we have no idea when we will be able to play
with the rest of the BS2 / A-10C / P-51 gang in DCS world

I wish ED would give us a rough idea when we will be able to get in on the fun

Black Shark 1 - $49.99
"upgrade" ----- $19.99

$69.98 in total and still excluded , not a great way to treat the customer

Hopefully not long now.

Nate

I'm not a fan of essentially rebuying the same products for minor upgrades. I'll be on my 4th (or 5th) Lock On purchase with FC3 comes out. Now, if they update the 3D models, cockpits, flight model, damage model, and make some other improvements I can justify it (though not at $30-60), but if FC3 is going to be FC2 aircraft ported into DCS World then I'll be a bit annoyed.

Luckily they are going with the DCS World model. They should have done this with BS1/FC2.

I would rather get MIG-21 or combined arms rather than rebuying Lock On and Black Shark, but such is such.

Hmmmm , I hope that this is hopefully not long now............
and not Neveda map not long now .....

Do you think ED dont tell us a schedule because they really haven't a clue what they are at ?

I know they are a small company , but surely some form of planning must occur ?

Schedules are announced at ED's leisure.

There's always an internal schedule.

Compared to whom? Say... 1C? Maddox games? Who-the-feek-ever responsible for the trainwreck / joke / catastrophe / steaming pile of **** that is CloD?

Well let's just put it that I personally actually DO believe them having oodles of more of a clue than the eejits mentioned above

I have to admit that BS2 did leave a little bit of a bitter taste in my mouth, but I really did like the improvements. I only went for the upgrade version of BS2, which wasn't too expensive.

Not being able to use it in world is a little bit of a shame, but not such a big deal for me at the moment as World is in Beta. If it were supposedly Gold, I'd probably be quite miffed.

Yes but when will that Golden moment happen ?

If it happens within say a month that would be golden indeed ........ few months something else not so golden

Just checked my magic 8 ball and ......... who knows ..... well ED do but they wont tell us

No need to indulge in your strange fetish, it will be sooner than that I reckon.

Nate

So you want essentially 5 DCS quality flyables for the price of less than one? Not gonna happen, not by a large margin. You have no idea how much work would have to go into that.

Even if it is longer, it's not as if they've taken anything away from existing owners of BS2 upgrade.

"But...but...but..."

Nate

leave my butt out of this!

Great news is they put their stuff on sale all the time.

I think we should be lucky that anyone at all is even bothering to make high fidelity combat sims anymore, when it would be a lot easier to make Call of Modern Warfare 11.


The days of Jane's, Microprose, etc. are gone. Support the devs that we still have.

My 2 cents.

I think Nate is hinting that there's going to be some sort of powered small naval craft! DCS Outboard Motors - a SimHQ EXCLUSIVE YOU READ IT HERE FIRST

You'll think it's small, until I park my DCS: Arleigh Burke 10nm out from a coastal enemy airport!

And now you say my butt could propel a boat through the water?

How rude!

My 2 cents .... from playing flight sims for over 30 years

We should be lucky ?, nope , they should count themselves lucky we buy their software.
If there was no market for sims , these guys would not be doing it , just because the golden age (90's)
of having lots of sim companies producing stuff is over , doesn't mean the ones who are left can act like eejits [admin edit].

I seriously doubt that if for example ED or 777 studios found making sims not paying enough ,
that they could suddenly shift and start knocking out COD type games , I just dont see it.

Take for example kickstarter , if you have a great concept and people have faith in it then money will flow
So if someone started working on a sim they could get funding to keep dev going.

If you make a good product at a fair price and dont take the piss then you will be ok.
People will buy your product and tell their friends , hell you might even buy it as a gift for someone (but
not from ED because they dont feel that making money from gifts from their store is worth doing , they
get a bigger cut if steam does it for them ????)

admin edit - ease up on the language

2 best lines of all time. I think a lot of people forget this. I know a lot of publishers / developers forget this.

The Combat Helo guys are in a financial hole at the mo, and reckon the Kickstarter is not as simple as it seems. Doesn't always work, either. Look at Fighter Ops!


Probably better to say the Kickstarter idea can work in some particular situations?

Well i can't see how kickstarter could not work?

As long as you the developer have accounted your projected costs correctly with a contingency. Then if you get the desired funding its happy days.

Well, yes, seems an easy solution. This from Flexman's blog -




If the teams building for DCS can get over the legal/regulatory issues kickstarter might well work for them. I don't know how obligated you become taking money for something that may never meet your customer's exacting requirements. These are simmers, after all.

Anyway, it's down to the public to put their money where they want!

Even if that may be the case, you can't construe an argument that entitles you to be rude out of it, neither can you expect to be treated with kid gloves when you don't stop calling other people things like the above. Seriously, the way that you turn your personal wishes not being fulfilled into the devs mistreating you is quite amazing.

Yes, you are lucky

Why?

You have the Choice!

And yeah, don't worry about future purchases and your contribution to the revenue stream: I've got it covered with my second purchase

Let's see......Purchasing a second licence to run a dedicated server and I'm a FanBoy?

Ok then

And choice is good! Choice is what makes the world go round. If you don't like what you see, by all means leave

Choice.

Yeaaah ok. You are my hero for wanting to run a dedicated server.

Leave... Ohh no, i am happy here watching you backpedal over your glorious claims that you can "single handedly" fund DCS development with your own subscription purchases.

add to that the blatent disregard to the opinions of others and direct and swift mindless dismissal.... Yeah, we have seen this before from certain DCS crowd.

There is constructive discussion whereby you can encourage those with questions or previous dismays of the positive changes in the game or you can answer the way you did basically saying you and DCS don't need nor want that increased player base. I wonder if ED agree with your point of view. I don't

Door - let it - hit - on - way out.

Meh. I own LOMAC,LOPlatinum,BS1 and A-10. After the whole BS2 patch suprise, I won't buy anything else from them. Yeah, yeah I know..."But they're one of the last developers still making sims". The problem is they know they are one of the few left, so they figure they can bend over gamers and rape their wallet. I could just imagine the meeting where they decided the price point of the BS2 patch:

All of them gathered around a table

Guy1:
"Can we really get away with charging this much for a patch?"

Guy2:
"Where else are they going to get their sims from? MUWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!


Laughter erupts from the table and the high fivin' and chest bumping commences.

What I find somewhat astonishing is the degree to which the last decade of what seems to me to be clear evidence of the difficulty - virtual impossibility - of producing realistic modern air combat simulations continues to be scoffed at. Fine, maybe you're not a particular fan of ED or some of the decisions made, but come on. How could anyone seriously accuse us of getting fat off of flight simmers' money? That is a joke and a rather offensive one. How many more sim projects, many far less ambitious than DCS, have to stall out before there is some kind of understanding that our hobby has long outgrown anyone's ability to feed it at a reasonable level of quality and within reasonable time frames? I mean, Microsoft, for Christ's sake probably the biggest and most comfortably set name in the business by a long shot, left it. Did that help us as simmers? MS Flight?

I don't want to say that "you" are the luckly ones, but I think most of the guys at ED could no doubt find jobs elsewhere and get paid considerably more for their rather specialized skills and talents. And as a company, I'm sure management could find other ways to use the talent in more profitable and far less demanding projects. We, however, as a simming community, would indeed lose what seems to me to be one of the few (I won't say "last" or "only", though I don't think it would be unfair to say so) realistic modern air combat sim projects around. This stuff is a struggle, financially and technically. You don't have to believe me. Just look around.

It just reminds me of how entitled gamers think they can be. See Mass Effect 3 ending debaucle.

The ironic thing about it all, is that people have no problem spending 10+ dollars to get into a movie, and another 10 on junk food, for 2 hours of entertainment. This $20 patch or whatever you want to call it, which is almost an entirely different sim than the original can provide hundreds of hours of entertainment.

I guess the best advice is, if you don't like it don't buy it.


#1st World Problems

Your forgetting about the thousands of dollars spent on the hardware to run these sims. If you had to spend $3,000 dollars every couple of years to manufacture your movie theater seats, and then pay your admission fees, you might feel differently. And yes, I don't like the price point so I choose not to buy it. I don't want to encourage the practice of paying for bug fixes that are rolled in with some new features when the fixes should have been free for the owners of the original game. A patch with the bug fixes only without the other features, would have been the way to show your customers you will fix future products without the extortion practices.

I still don't see the logic.

Clearly they believe that the amount of work that went into the update was enough that they felt they should get some renumeration for the product. ED regularly releases "bug fixes" in the form of patches which they do not charge for.

I fully agree that the communication from ED to the users leaves a lot to be desired, but don't criticize them for wanting to get paid.

And really, like it or not.. DLC and Microtransactions are the way the gaming industry is going. Personally I pick and choose which companies get my hard earned dollars. You won't catch me buying items in Diablo 3, but I'll happily pay for major updates to the few modern combat sims I have left.

Actually, they got paid when we purchased the software. It's paying them to fix what doesn't function properly that isn't a business model a lot of us are embracing. I actually feel bad for the remaining customers because these practices are making our numbers even smaller. That means even more price gouging for future as they continue to lose customers because of bad business practices.

Did they remove BS1 from your computer? You've lost nothing. You are not required to pay for anything you feel is not good value.

EDIT:- In the meantime Download DCS:-World for free and enjoy the free Su-25T and all these the future 3rd Party Payware Modules, without paying ED a Cent if you feel that bitter.

DCS: MiG-21Bis Fishbed (beczl)
DCS: F-15E Strike Eagle (Iris)
DCS: Eurofighter (VEAO)
DCS: Hawk T1 (VEAO)
DCS: F-18E (CoreTex)
DCS: F-104G Starfighter (FCS)
DCS: Harrier or Intruder or A4 (Razbam)
Patriots L-39 Albatros (Patriots+Virtual Patriots)
Iris F-22
Iris F-14
Iris (DCS?) T-38A
Iris BD-5J Microjet


Nate

So your choice to spend $3,000 on your hardware (which I don't even do as a developer, interestingly enough), which you no doubt use more or less 24/7 for about a hundred other things besides ED products, gives you the moral right to say we feel as if we "can bend over gamers and rape their wallet" over what you think is an unjustifed $30 addon ($20 now)? We should feel lucky indeed.



If this was the manner of your conversation, there would at least be something to discuss. Sure, you don't feel the addon was worth the asking price, that's fine. On the other hand, and this is just my opinion, I would suggest it's a rather twisted joke that we are selling software as complex and in-depth as A-10C for 40 bucks, when in a more reasonably priced market I would expect to see it sold for hundreds, or thousands in a professional market. But I guess we diverge in our assesment of value.

Fair comment.

However, i think you will find that FSX was a commercial success to quite a large degree. Such a success, look at all the 3rd party businesses that were created, big and small, that run off of one peice of software. FSX is a huge success (commercially) As for microsoft dropping it, well that is ultimately their own decision.

Microsoft then had the brainstorm (and its a pretty darn good idea really - if implemented well) that if a product can do so well in a niche market, what will happen if they can include those not normally attributed to such a niche. Brilliant ! But the product by the sounds of it, isn't good enough to capture that vision.

Microsoft didn't abandon this industry they wanted to open it up. they see the potential in this market, so its there.

As for ED. Well, sure they must have a pssion in what they are doing but at the end of the day this is a business. I think its a pretty ridiculous assumption to think that DCS is just a byproduct of love to waste all their time in instead of feeding their familes.

ED know that they have a pretty darned indepth product on their hand and there is really no competition for that in the marketplace at the moment. They have found a market, and they are lucky enough to be in the position to find an opening to cover the fall of FSX era. Its not for love alone they are doing this. Its for money as well and they stand to make a large chunk of money if done right. They know (should) that.

So they have a business. That business has developed a market. And a massive global hole in that market will be opening in the next few years to which there is no currently known competitor. Just look at the FSX developers already showing migration interest.

I see it as folly, that there is such opportunity and you and others that share the same oppinion think we the flight sim hobbyist should be thankful for their work. Well yes and no. I am thankful that they have created the product, but there is a market there, a large market, and someone else would eventually fill their shoes. Sure a lot of businesses went bung trying to do the same as ED, but how manhy car manufacturers met the smae fate purely by bad products, bad business decisions and bad support?

I am not thankful, because there will always be an alternative product. Sure i may have to wait 3-5 year for it but that isn't long especially in the time frame that DCS releases items.

So ED should be thankful to us - the consumer. We are the ones that will line their pockets. We are the market they are reaching for. They are not doing purely for love otherwise the game would be free. They are doing it as a business and any good business has model based on great customer service.

I hope ED do well, i hope they consider us more instead of how they treated us in the past.

I have no problems with paying for work. I am more than happy to shell out money for it. What i will not do is shell out money to those i feel don't care about me, the consumer. Because, someday, somewhere, someone else will take my money if i won't give it to them.

Its been a great few years for flight items and the buzz behind them epitomises how much of a market is there. Take CLOD and ROF. Both were shoddy and horid on release but look how much they have been supported. The market is there, though piss us (the customer) off and rest assured, there is not enough die hard fans to keep a product in development if you don't have the hand of the general consumer.

Like i said before and i think a lot will agree with this. I like the product, i want more of the product. I am happy to pay for the product. But if you sh1te in my mouth i am not coming back for seconds.

As a personal statement, ED would have a lot more of my money in their pockets if they treated me like a customer. I wonder how many others out there are like me ?

It's the fact that bug fixes were rolled into the addon that bothers me. Was I not clear on that point? Bugs are basically "mistakes" they have in the software. Forcing us to pay for fixing these mistakes is what I have a problem with. Do I have to put it in caps?

+1 When this first happened there was a thread of many others unhappy as well. Unfortunately, the number of customers lost vs the income from the overpriced patch probably still made them come out ahead. Expect more "pay for patch" business model type of behavior.

I intentionally said that I don't want to say that "you" should feel lucky. If nothing else, I feel this would be impolite. But more importantly, I think the accurate and reasonable perspective is the middle one. ED as a developer of flight sims is lucky to have a dedicated customer base on which it can rely on. At the same time, the air combat community is lucky to have a surviving developer who maintains an interest and capability to continue developing. Both are equally true and I only made my post in response to the "bending gamers over and raping their wallet" comment, which was, to be honest, a personal afront, pure and simple. I'm certainly not making what could be considered a comfortable salary for the Los Angeles area, yet I'm pretty sure I'm on the upper end of the average ED salary, while most of them live in what is, last time I checked, the most expensive city in the world.

I don't remember BS1v1.02 being horribly broken. All software contains bugs - a fact of life. It is not possible to fix them all.

Nate

All, the language in this thread is escalating, in a way that's going beyond debate or expressing opinions. Have your say (respectfully please) and now take it down a notch please, otherwise this is getting tossed.

No prob Fearless....

No, it wasn't clear once you muddled the waters with your $3,000 hardware, which was apparently part of the reason you felt the black shark 2 addon was unjustified.

Now as far as bugs go, I can safely say that every ED product, like just about any other software product, the vast majority of which are far less complex than our sims, always had and will continue to have some bugs. And none of our products will include free patches to the point of eliminating all bugs. If this isn't acceptable for you, we understand and of course you are free to exercise your right not to purchase our products. Having said that, we always have been and continue to be comitted to quality releases, which are traditionally followed by a number of free patches that not only fix bugs, but typically add significant new gameplay features as well. There are times, however, when development of features and the progression of code reaches a point where it is no longer feasible to provide a free patch release and a payware product is deemed justified and/or necessary. Once again, you obivously don't have to buy it if you don't feel the product justifes the cost.

Clearly this is an agree-disagree situation.

Hopefuly the unsatisfied customers will speak with their wallets, which really is the best way to show support or non-support of a business.

I for one will continue to support ED if I think the product deserves it. I didn't buy P-51 because I have no interest in the aircraft.

There isn't one piece of software that has eliminated all bugs. But when you have eliminated some bugs, and then charge for them, it's a different story. Maybe it would be different if BS1 wasn't the least supported product in the series. If the same thing happened with A-10, it would be more understandable because there have been multiple patches for that title. BS1 customers got the shaft...that bad taste in my mouth caused them to lose a customer forever. I do have "disposable income" of sorts for my hobby, but I don't hand it over to bad practices. It's not the price really, it's the principle.

That was in response to the tired old "movie theater" debate.

The patching philosophy at the time was different, instead of small and faster patches, ED at the time opted to do big patches with great intervals between them, but they contained one hell of a lot more fixes and improvements, all of which seem to have been lost on you, for example, one of them being the new sound engine that was introduced with 1.0.2. Your above statement is seriously misguided, IMO.

Alright, well at least I feel that we reached a more amiable position of disagreement, which I am satisfied with if it is indeed the case. As I said, really I only got involved on somewhat of a personal cause. Outside of that, I've already posted the complete list of black shark 2 new and improved features, which I think speaks for itself to any user trying to decide whether it is worth a purchase or not.

Thanks.

A quick observation regarding "patch":

Release dates:
DCS: Black Shark - Oct 2008
DCS: Black Shark 2 - Nov 2011

A timespan of 3 years.


MSFS 2000 - Fall 1999
MSFS 2002 - Oct 2001
MSFS 2004 - July 2003
MSFS X - Oct 2006

Timespans are 2 years, 2.5 years, 3 years.

Someone explain to me why it's okey for MicroSoft to take full payment for big upgrades to a product, but not ED?

This "discussion" is just plain weird to me. If you held pretty much all software developers on the planet to the standards you appear to be holding Eagle Dynamics, you wouldn't be purchasing any software at all, but rather have your Linux box set up with Flight Gear. Have fun.

+1

Hi bogusheadbox,

What makes you feel like you are not being treated as a customer?

Comparing a survey sim to a study sim is apples and oranges. In MSFS, if there is a plane that has bugs there are 18 others you can fly (or hundreds if you count the user made ones). In a study sim, you have one flyable....if it has bugs, the whole game is affected. Does that clear things up a little?

Hi Gray,

If its ok with you i will answer with a PM on that one due to i think this thread has turned a little too negative in a few areas.

Then don't purchase study sims.

This is reality - there is no such thing as bug-free software once you've moved beyond the day-1 Hello World. That's just the way it is.

And personally, I recall BS1 working quite fine, no gamebreakers I recall, and it was even given a new sound engine for free previously. But if the presence of bugs - ANY bugs - offends you, then shut your computer down and never use one again. That's just how it is.

The presence of bugs that are fixed for a price was the discussion. Bugs....not new features.

So if the bugs were left to remain you would have been fine?

You act like this is some sort of new phenomena. I remember all the way back to 1942 PAW Gold having bug fixes that were never addressed in the original 1942 PAW game. Even the various versions of US Nave Fighters all the way through Fighter Anthology had patches for bugs in previous games. I can go on, Strike Fighters 2, Longbow 2, add on content for Rise of Flight, Steel Beasts 2.6. Eventually code becomes legacy and support stops. Sorry but your 45 bucks can only go so far.

There is a certain life cycle for certain games. Companies that patch old games and don't develop newer versions or updates will end up out of business and will never be able to create new titles. BS1 is a four year old product, understand that. The development cycle for that title is long gone.

Yep.

And despite BS1 being a 4-year old product, it's still supported; while it isn't for free, if you are a fan of this heli, the cost to upgrade to BS2, and to be included in DCS: World and be tied in with all the other modules, as well as getting upgrades to the environment, is costing you a twenty. Over four years. That's four years of huge amounts of development for $20.

Understood. I guess the backlash from longtime simmers here and at the DCS forums when the BS2 surprise was announced was completely unfounded? This coming from a community that is well aware of the facts you stated above. Being a long time simmer myself....I guess I just won't get used to the pay for patch model. That is ok though, I have started branching more into other areas of gaming since the flight sim business model is circling the drain. They are making a niche' genre even smaller with poor communication and nickel and dime practices IMO. When flight simming hits rock bottom, the lack of simmers will be a contributing factor.

People's fond memories of days distant are really funny. Jane's titles - really great and fun. Patched once or twice..then nothing more. No add on planes. No add on theaters. No interoperability. Falcon 4. Released, patched once. Then that was pretty much it from the developers. No add ons, no interoperability, no additional theaters.

So don't let your fond memory of old sims cloud your judgement of what business models DO work (ie: making enough money to pay your employees to keep building a solid lineup of products that should appeal to a very broad spectrum of people..)

Every single time I fire up A-10C I shake my head in wonder that it only costs $50 (or $39 or $24 depending on when you got it on sale..) I'm the biggest fan in the world of Longbow, Jane's F-15 and JF-18..but I try to keep my memory based in the reality of what they were and how they turned out (from a business model standpoint) in the long run.

ED has found a successful formula and I commend them for it.

Backlash to what exactly? Some people complained that it was a pay-for upgrade. (By the way, it was something around 2GB over BS1. Not very patchy). A bunch later posted that the upgrade was worth their money. A few thought otherwise, but I imagine they will change their mind once integration into DCSW is complete.

There are those who objected to the sudden announcement, rather than the price. For the most part, they said their piece, and IIRC, Jim Mack made an apology for that, but maybe I'm not remembering correctly.



Nothing is circling the drain. According to what I've heard, sales have been alright so far, though it isn't as if difficulties don't happen. But that's just what I've heard.

I'd like to see your rant on the games you're branching into ... by all accounts, it might be hard to find something that would satisfy you. After all, all game series are just 'pay-for-patches' in the end if one follows your logic.

I guess the difference Beach is the "production values" you got for your initial investment. Falcon while not supported for very long, had enormous value to it. People still play it today and other forms of it that were modded for free to be probably the best sim available right now in the form of BMS. DCS may model planes well, but there is no immersion of being a pilot, isn't that what we are trying to simulate? IE: Promotions, medals, squadmates you care about etc. For the folks that like the way this model works for them....that's fine. If you can understand why some don't like it....even better.

No immersion in DCS? That's a good one.

We are all experts aren't we.


I'm officially out, this argument is going nowhere quickly.

/chews popcorn

I will freely admit that I have been out of the loop for awhile with DCS....I haven't done much flying since the BS2 deal. So tell me what changes I have missed out on for the offline immersion.

Do your AI wingmen have names and carry through from one mission to the next?
Do you have the ability to rank up if your performance over the course of your missions has earned it?
Can you be awarded medals for outstanding performance?
Can you be captured if you bail out?
Is there a leaderboard for kills in your squadron that you can compete with?
Is there any kind of feeling that you are in a continuing war?

I'm sure there is some stuff I'm leaving out but if any of these things have been implemented for the offline player since I stopped, maybe I will have another look. A quick glance at DCS and lock on files doesn't show much in the way of created campaigns or missions so I'm skeptical.

Good idea!

Has been implemented since black shark and probably even since the LO days, but i can't comment on the latter as i never player it.

Everyone - how much is *YOUR* time worth? What would you charge for an hour of your time? How much time do you spend on your computer? Planning it, buying it, building it and using it, and stocking it? (And complaining about software upgrade costs?)

$20 vs. ~$10,000 ? $69 vs. ~$5,000 ?

And then there's the beer and soda and smokes.




Also, I write software for a living. It's never bug-free. And sometimes bug fixes just have to go with a new version; sometimes the bug doesn't get to the top until a lot of work has gone into the next planned release. It is just not practical to patch up code that is months (or years) old - and spend the release costs - when all the resources are going to improving the product and getting the next release out as best as possible.

WC

I dont think people expect software to be bug free (too complex these days and not enough effort put into testing properly)

But what I think annoys people is that the longest and earliest supporters of ED
are the ones who got the shaft , we should NEVER have had to pay for the BS1-> BS2 patch

We already paid for those improvements when we bought A10C and now with DCS World being modular even less of a reason to screw us twice

BUT what ever you do , dont say that on ED forums , it might get you banned.

Yep the early adopters are the ones to face the most problems , for me I cannot play a game
I paid (BS2) for because my BS1 has run out of activations , I raise a support ticket 36 Days ago but
they cannot be bothered to reply ...... not exactly great customer service.

I do understand that their customer support side is under strain .... but it was their own poor business decisions
that put them in that position, why should we suffer ?

I agree, DCS is all about simulating airplanes, so when missions run out, people start flying under bridges and doing all sorts of experiments and goofs to keep them entertained. Crosswind carrier landing being one of them. You don't see that in BMS, since there's always a unique mission ahead. If you get bored, it's usually the difficulty not set high enough.

Even with FA18 or mudhen, it'll be the same kind of terrain and missions, UNLESS they come up with DC engine. Imagine the campaign being dead-is-dead. You'd only get one airplane and you must take care of it. Get killed, campaign over. Like in ROF. Career mode. Adding kill marks on the side of the plane after each mission would be icing on the cake.

Sounds more like CoD/CSS/BFBC2 etc to me. Arcade game stuff.

These are the kind of things that make me avoid titles.

Yes, I've been simming as my main PC entertainment since 1985 and have a few hours clocked up.

It's real life. Pilots all over the world have a name, a face and a background story. They get higher ranks, compete on leaderboards and getting decorated.

Ofcourse it sits low on the priority list, but seeing this stuff in RoF, it really pulls you into the game.

Whatever.

I get plenty of 'immersion', as do very many others (look in the AAR section and in stuff like eno's firehouse thread). Some things might make it better, sure - but everyone would probably have their own ideas about what they like/want for that.

Pilots also do lots of other mundane things - as do soldiers, sailors and policemen, but not to have them included does not mean there is no immersion in a sim or game.

I'm so pleased you can bless us with your worldly opinion of life as it's lived, though, as we are so unexperienced in these things.

How many military aircraft have you flown? How many wars have you fought in? How many years have you been a groundcrewman?

Yes - I have done all three (two of them as a trained professional) and I find this sim, amongst others, very immersive - but the things mentioned are unnecessary for that and the last 3 just ego-buffers.

But please, do tell me more about life?

The point is, only the most enthusiastic people will buy all the addons, if all we will ever get in DCS are new planes. Whenever I check the servers, people are flying either on the Firehouse or a couple of Dragons missions all the time. It gets boring and repetitive rather quickly, despite the awesome modeled avionics or flight model.

You know how they say money can't bring happiness? DCS is something like that, it's technically the most advanced sim ever made, but without a soul, for the lack of a better word, that kept us playing older games. Freespace 2, for example.

But that's from a gaming perspective, if you take DCS strictly as a training or an educational tool and not entertainment, then it really can't get any better.

I don't think it's the "soul" that makes a game survive.

It's the community, and ability for the community to contribute/expand/get involved in how that game evolves.

Talking for myself here, I have flown the A-10C for over a year now, and have yet to play a single player mission.
All my time in DCS is used online. Where you have real people to talk to, real people who watch your back, and real people on your wing. But as everything else, personal taste, not everyone want's to be online etc etc.

Anyway, people should take a look at the possibilities with the way DCS is moving. And I don't think the goal for ED is to get everyone to buy all the addons. Currently I have the A-10C, and will get combined arms when it's out of beta.

After that I'll just wait and see what pops up on the radar.

But think about this for a second:

Just a short while ago the only modern hardcore military flight simulations was A-10C/KA-50. In their separate worlds. You would need to go back to the end of the 90's to find anything similar ( Jane's FA-18 & Falon 4). Yes they have been updated by the community, but they are starting to age.
Now we are looking at a pure military core, where there's basically no limit.

F-14, F-15, F-18, Hawk, Eurofighter Typhon, F-22, Mig-21, T-38A, BD-5J and the list goes on. With ED laying down the foundation, it's a lot bigger chance to see "that" aircraft/helicopter as a simulator, then hoping for some obscure unknown developer to make a complete game around it.

Enough rambling from my side



Just to add some content in my post :p

Large mission, with randomized tasking Havent had the pleasure of testing this out yet. But apparently it kicks butt.

Recomended 3rd party upgrades to DCS: World

Just to make sure it's known- we at eno's firehouse (1.1.1.1) are listening and I saw the remark above about how it gets repetitive quickly. I'm sure many who have flown multiplayer at some point have been into the firehouse for a flight and many will have experience with Wrecking Crews awesome missions... He's still relatively new to it but his scripting is getting more and more advanced with each new mission. It helps that he really enjoys the creative process and I think it shows. But yes- for those who do fly with us more often, some of the missions (even the ones designed by others) can't help but become a bit predictable in some respects. I've always looked more to the sim to provide that cooperative experience- so I am less fussed about the targets and more interested in the coordinated efforts between virtual pilots.

Reading the above post by Tzeer, we've now looked into the dynamic mission created by Habu23. Looks fantastic- and adds the level of unpredictability that we need to rejuvinate interest in the server / sim across the broader community.

Anyway, we're still flying 1.1.1.1 over at the firehouse- and all are welcome. Visit the A-10 page "What's cooking..." thread to see what's going on over there.

Thanks again for the lead- I've passed on a request to Habu to officially host it on our server.

sorry, i have been out of the picture for a while, so is version 1.1.1.1 where you can fly shark and a10-c together

Yes, you can do that- 1.1.1.1 is the last version before it went into the module mode.

Ok thanks