I guess I have my answer, so it seems the latest newsletter which I just received is promoting yet another new campaign....and only a new campaign. A new DCS World update that features nothing other than support for a new payware campaign? How's about putting more effort into the unfinished content where customer funds have returned nothing more than the beta status? Campaigns may be good....however not at the expense of the focus that is required for DCS World.

I knew a quick profit would be a head turner.....so this looks to be yet another direction change for ED. I'm sure we'll be seeing campaign after campaign and the associated 'updates' that also promote the bundle sales too. I suppose it negates any requirement for a dynamic campaign!

How's about getting the missions into the Nevada branch for starters or is that at the back of the queue because no funds are generated?

I get closer and closer to giving up on this mess every month. Such a shame because the potential is huge and will probably never be realised.

Suggest you read changelogs and such before assuming each patch is only campaign support.

The last 2 patches have added Significant fixes and stuff to the F-86 and MiG-15 at the very least.

Not counting the plethora of fixes and tuning to the M2000C,

You are seeing what you want to see, and ignoring everything else to validate your assumption.

Mig-15 came out of beta last week. Also this campaign isn't new, I've owned it for over a year, purchased directly from the creator. Seems to align with what ED have said about selling 3rd party campaigns directly through their store, not much of a surprise.

Even though the weekly updates are great, I am still anxiously waiting "the merger"

As stated, I'm going off the newsletter that I just received; of which there is absolutely no news of ANYTHING other than release of a 'new' campaign. Considering this is a newsletter, and an ideal opportunity to inform customers of progress - how about they actually include some valid information in them? It's not a case of seeing what I want to see....it's a case of seeing what ED obviously want their customers to see.....in this example it's yet more payware!

How come some newsletters details progress and updates, yet some newsletters include nothing other than what they're selling at any particular moment in time. Sounds like you need to whinge at your employers if you want customers to see the excellent progress, updates, fine-tuning and fixes you claim they are making.



"DCS World 1.5.3 Update 2

Also on 18 March 2016, we will release the second update to version 1.5.3 of DCS World. Please note 1.5.3 Update 2 is the support for the new A-10C: BFT campaign"

Due to ED continually announcing/releasing content whilst many other products are still in beta I'm not entertaining the M2000C or any other beta product from this point on (that's ED's problem that so many people are now taking this stance due to the way they have gone about their business so far), so as good as it looks the 'fixes and tuning' are completely irrelevant for me and especially so if they are tucked away in changelogs. If the changelogs are only kept on the ED forums, then that will be another reason why I and many people won't see them.

Final point in reply to your post. You mention the F86, Mig15 and Mirage, yet these are all 3rd parties......perhaps ED aren't reporting progress because it isn't their progress to publish....what progress are ED making with DCS World for example?...There is absolutely no mention of anything in their latest newsletter and I know for a fact these newsletters have previously included this! You wonder why people like me make these posts? - how about ED create some consistency and sort out their communication.....as far as I'm aware the only progress ED has made in the week or so has been a single payware campaign and the previous newsletter detailed 3rd party module improvements and very little about DCS World too.

ok so now you're complaining about the newsletter format?


The link to the changelog is also in the news letter less than 3 lines from the line you quoted.

ED is working on fixing bugs with 1.5 and 2.0 and eventually merging them when Caucuasus is finished being converted to T4.

You expect a major announcement of some thing new every week?

This is MapleFlags Campaign, not EDs.

In your rush to defend ED you're obviously missing the point completely (as expected). The thread title and the first post give it away.

Are you now insinuating that a 3rd party campaign offers no monetary gain to ED? My concern is quite simple, and quite obviously geared around quick wins, quick profits that take some focus away from the progress in areas that really need it.

We're still effectively discussing (or arguing in your case) about DCS content that still remains in beta whilst new content is continually produced. I've no doubt that an update in a few months time will probably make this latest campaign unworkable and then we can await another few months whilst that is fixed because ED continue to stumble from one bit of work to the next without actually planning something with any real logic or roadmap behind it.

Let's ignore 3rd party module progress for now, that's 3rd party business....what's the latest on DCS World, what about the 1.5/2.0 merge, where are the Nevada missions, where is the ED progress? Is there nothing to put in the newsletter?....is the 'new' campaign just filler because there is no real news?

If you actually look at the change-log from the latest newsletter, this is the only valid news for DCS:

Game will be able re-save older mission files correctly
MP. Double ejecting of net-phantom pilot is eliminated


There is next to nothing in the previous week, the week before that was a spring sale....get my point? Probably not. Maybe the team are busy with new campaigns!

Maybe the team is busy working on:
Gwneral bugs in 1.5/2.0,
Converting Caucasus to T4,
Finalizing F-86F,
BST F-5E,
NTTR Debuging,
SoH Map,
DX11 Effects revamps,
F-18C Flight Model and Avionics,
Spitfire Development,
MiG-29 PFM and External Model Revamp,
Su-33 PFM,
NTTR Missions,
ATC Revamp,
Among the other things in 1.5/2.0

Im sorry if each and every Dev in EDs office sldoesnt Give a personalized blurb every week of their progress.

The News letters have been anmouncimg the New Comtent, regardless of 1st / 3rd Party, or Content type, you cant fault them for wanting to advertise for themselves or 3rd Parties.

That's probably the reason why progress is so slow then.

Too many concurrent projects, too little resources, too many changes without proper planning and attempting to introduce too many new platforms in a rush to generate funds.

It's almost ridiculous to think that in 2008 we had an unfinished Black Shark in an unfinished Caucasus.

8 years later in 2016 we have even more unfinished platforms in an unfinished Caucasus and absolutely no idea when its going to be ready - yet ED's newsletters are featuring new campaigns!!!!!!

Yet you still can't see the problem or the concern lol. I think you've been involved with ED for far too long!

You're involved with AMD testing?......even though they've had their problems, if they handled their planning and development like ED they'd have been laughed off planet Earth long before now.

you are the most critical of critics.

2008 vs now is completely different.

Caucasus and KA50 were feature complete long ago,

Caucasus 2.0 is an entirely different scenario.

The engine has moved from DX9 to DX11,
Changes and conversions of IP were expected.

Its amusing how you pick and draw straws though. Good Job.

And you can leave my status with ED, AMD, Microsoft and any others I do work for out of your counter analysis,

It has nothing to do with my opinions or views and frankly Im just as tired of repeating that as you are tired of whining about ED.

To answer all your points above in a single reply....

If ED expected changes and conversions in IP as you allude to then it demonstrates well beyond reasonable doubt just how utterly incompetent they are in their planning.

I'll absolutely continue to make a comparison of ED with any company I choose to because its just another example of how you and many others (for whatever reason) choose to blindly ignore, refute or acknowledge how incompetent they have become whilst seemingly haven't learned from a single mistake they have made.

It's bizarre that no other company would ever be given the same amount of slack....whilst passionate about flight sims it's something I've never comprehended.

1. You need to re read what you are saying,Theres gonna be changes when you evolve an Engine From One Generation to the Next.

Theres no such thing as a completely future proof IP.


2. My Affiliations are not part of your continued analysis and again, have nothing to do with you, ao you'd be wise to drop that subject, as I am tired of seeing my status posted more than the Walking dead Carl Memes.

Im not ignoring jack diddly, Im just not fixiated on posting only the negative aspects.

FIND. A.. DIFFERENT... ANGLE.

Mapleflag has great missions. Well worth the money.

Whilst on the subject of patches, newsletters and progress.....

DCS Hawk T1 by VEAO
Autostart and Autostop commands now working

*From the last newsletter

(Yet the day the patch was released "You don't get higher up the chain at VEAO" posted the rotating beacon was not turning off during the autostart sequence and will fixed in the next patch....One can only imagine that even the ED testers themselves have given up on actually testing the hawk otherwise it would have been picked up before the patch was released, not the day it was released.

Yep....That's progress, and nothing from them in this latest change log, not even a rotating beacon fix which consumers were told would be fixed this patch by none other than "You don't get higher up the chain at VEAO"

As far as campaigns go, just more media hype to sell a product. Does the reviewer get paid by ED for his write ups on Mudspike? Maple flag campaigns.....i'd rather pay for a campaign by Snoopy and the 476th Virtual Fighter Group. Notice it's mostly only the junior members over at ED who have the maple flag emblems in their sigs......anyone one with some sense would rather pay for something that is entertaining, not just for a dodgy sig emblem. So what are people really paying for? the campaign or crappy sig emblem?

I will however support campaigns that put together by the Russians, KA-50 campaigns that came with the bird were probably the best so far, plus the original A-10C campaign, the purchased one didn't really do much for me other than the female voice over.

1. Of course there will be changes, but you'd think that at the very least ED would have some sort of idea with regards their estimations, have a process to work to and wouldn't have YEARS of delays.

2. I don't care for your affiliations one iota. Apart from me mentioning one which is right next to your username, you still felt the need to mention two others in your reply. There's no need for you to play the victim card yet again, my comparison is there purely to show how you and other people choose to ignore ED's shortcomings when other companies would get absolutely slated for it.

I recall some of your posts for example lamenting EA/DICE for the mess that was BF4.. .a game that was fixed within a few months. Yet DCS is delayed, bugged, has unfinished modules, P2P clients that are unusable and aircraft that can't even be launched for periods of time elapsing over many years however somehow that's perfectly fine and people jump to the defence at every opportunity. No logic whatsoever.

"DCS World 1.5.3 Update 2

Also on 18 March 2016, we will release the second update to version 1.5.3 of DCS World. Please note 1.5.3 Update 2 is the support for the new A-10C: BFT campaign."

Plus, it mentions the bundle deals. Also, newsletter. A letter with news. The release of the campaign is news, you like it or not. It's not called whatever-news-Paradaz-deems-worthy-letter.

For the Record, BF4 was NOT fixed in months.

For the record and given your association with ED as a tester, I won't use your definition of when something is 'fixed' or not within a specific timeframe.

I think I'll wait for the 476TH Fighter Group to post whether the maple flag missions are worth purchasing or not. This "new" campaign is years old for the A-10C.

Did Sabre actually liase with anyone who is in the know before his work was produced or did he just piss in the wind and hope for the best? If it's the latter.....his fooled many, even ED

You complain about ED having too little ressources in a thread that you solely created to fault them for finding ways to generate more revenue? Where do you think that revenue goes (considering that the number of projects that ED work on is continuously growing)? Either the logic train doesn't halt at your station or you are being seriously disingenuous here.

Nope. I created the thread for discussion as to whether people think that ED are now starting to focus on quick-profit campaigns at the expense of DCS progress.

If you're insinuating that ED need to generate more revenue just to continue development then it's just another example of them taking too many concurrent projects on and not having accurate estimates as part of their planning in the first place.

I'm not sure how much effort it takes on ED's part to integrate a campaign made by some guy into the game. Especially if the campaign has been around for a few years and was sold on his own website in that time. If anything it just makes me question if this is the new norm for campaigns. Instead of releasing a free campaign to the community someone decides to go to ED and make it payware instead. It certainly has made a few people interested in making campaigns all a sudden.

Funny you're complaining about Campaigns in Quick Profits, then you use BF4 as a Comparative Example...

When BF3 and BF4 are both Desgined for DLC and Quick Profits... lol

If ED Wanted Quick Profits, they'd be Selling Engine and Weapon Upgrade Packs, and Make it so you have to level up to unlock systems.

Want to use the A-10C TGP, oop, You Gotta be Level 45, if you dont wanna wait, you can purchase an expert pack.

Maybe so, however what % or cut does ED take from selling user made campaigns that are integrated into official patches and releases? if it was actually worth it, yes more people would be coming forward. Even at 50% each way or $5 bucks per sale is it really worth it?

"You don't get higher up the chain at VEAO" boasted 10's of thousands of hawk sales where as I didn't think it could be any more than 3 - 5 thousand. However if what "up the chain" said holds any merit, than an ED endorsed user made campaign at say 50% each way based on a hypothetical 10,000 campaign sales would equate to $50,000 each way.

My guess is, if 10's of thousands of people have purchased the hawk, Then 100's of thousands must have purchased the A-10C, and if that is anything to go off, then a combined 10's of millions must have purchased the A-10C, KA-50 and other aircraft officially endorsed by ED and their partner BST. Given that data, If building a campaign and proposing it ED to be officially endorsed, We would see 1,000 000 to 5,000 000 consumers over at the ED forums boasting that they are building a campaign and looking to sell it through ED. However we don't do we? instead we see the release of a 3 year old DCS A-10C campaign revamped and repackaged as a "new" campaign for DCS.

Wouldn't we see either on here at SimHQ or over at the official DCS forums, hundreds of thousands of general users boasting of putting campaigns up for the public to comment on? It's taken how long for ED to realize Ranger79's campaigns that's been out for a year or so and is actually better than and more enjoyable than the recent officially endorsed DCS A-10C campaign. This makes me wonder and no doubt others who is the marketing manager at ED.

I take it people like my myself have done the math and realize that it would be a waste of time and energy unless of course you want to add to your "rep" and score a few more green squares over at ED HQ

You'll be waiting quite a while. We don't do single player, and most of us have never flown any DCS campaigns or standalone missions from ED or anyone else within the DCS "community". There are one or two more junior members who do, Recon being one example, but they do so on their own not under the umbrella of the 476th.

Interesting that you chose a 3rd party campaign release to ask this question.

Nate

Fair call, so in other words....a complete waste of money really

It's not that interesting because if you read the first post you'll see I questioned whether we'd suddenly start seeing a lot more campaigns back in November last year. Lo and behold.

That would make sense if was a campaign by ED.

Nate

You'll get the goalposts moved if you try hard enough, read the thread and try to ignore the latest newsletter.

Also on 18 March 2016, we will release the second update to version 1.5.3 of DCS World. Please note 1.5.3 Update 2 is the support for the new A-10C: BFT campaign

I see - and just how has this 3rd party campaign release affected DCS Progress then? Is there anything you can tell us that isn't conjecture on your part?

Nate

LOL, that old chestnut....... You haven't read the thread from the start yet - I recommend you do that first, so that you can put your opinion across when you put your thoughts/answers against questions posed rather than going on the defensive and trying to start the usual counter argument with your own set of silly questions.

I may also point you to the definition of a 'forum'. I know that ED aren't really aware of the purpose but SimHQ certainly are.

The fact that there are still lots of bugs with the mission editor/ai behavior etc is this new content going to "work" correctly a year from now?

Maybe ED can focus on A/A next, cuz missiles have been borked for what, 4 years now?


QFT

This question "Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus"?

Then I would have to say no.

Nate

Saw in the latest update that we can now buy "training" missions. So they sell us a full fidelity a/c then they sell the training missions too.

Remember the good old days when we didn't get nickled and dimed to death? I know that in my business not doing this to my customers has actually increased my revenue.

Nope the A-10C module still comes with training missions. This is a 3rd party's campaign being sold.

Nate

I don't see how anything I've said is off topic? Now as to your questions (I think I have then all), I'll try to answer as best I can, since you asked so nicely.

EDIT:- Awww you deleted your post.

A new DCS World update that features nothing other than support for a new payware campaign?

No, a few important fixes too. I think there is a changelog somewhere for this update. EDIT: I've linked it below.

How's about getting the missions into the Nevada branch for starters or is that at the back of the queue because no funds are generated?

Honestly I've no idea as to how ED handles it's revenue. Nobody here does, so the above is manufactured speculation IMO. I do know however that work on Nevada branch continues.

Considering this is a newsletter, and an ideal opportunity to inform customers of progress - how about they actually include some valid information in them?

Can't really answer this one unless we define what constitutes valid/non-valid information. I suspect this would be different for each individual.

........what progress are ED making with DCS World for example?

Change logs are in the link below with updates to DCS world dated 18th,11th March, 17thFeb, 22nd Jan for 2016 and about 12 other changlogs for the period Sept-Dec 2015
http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?p=2707665#post2707665

You wonder why people like me make these posts?

I couldn't possible explain what motivates you - This may have been rhetorical

Are you now insinuating that a 3rd party campaign offers no monetary gain to ED?

Not directed to me, but I can't imagine they are not.

what's the latest on DCS World, what about the 1.5/2.0 merge, where are the Nevada missions, where is the ED progress?

Ok a few questions rolled into one, lets see....
Latest on DCS world is a bit broad in scope, but to be pedantic is actually the Newsletter that sparked the discussion.
The 1.5/2.0 merge is ongoing - not much else to say here really. It will be done when its done, it's not a cut and paste job.
Where are the Nevada missions - I don't know the time frame for these, these will mostly likely come with the Nevada release
Where is the ED progress - Hard to quantify this question, but if you go over the Changlogs linked above you'll see detailed past progress from last September onward.

Is there nothing to put in the newsletter?....is the 'new' campaign just filler because there is no real news?

Ok, 2 in 1. First one, probably not anything they felt like sharing. Second one, here we'll have to define what constitutes real news, again I've feeling that this will depend on the individual.

There is next to nothing in the previous week, the week before that was a spring sale....get my point?

I think I do. I guess the point you are making is that they don't keep you informed as often as you'd wish.

Nate

Let's take a moment to align ourselves with the forum rules.

1.2 Forum members must treat others with respect and tolerance.

1.5 Threads and posts are to be on topic according to the forum section and thread title.

I don't want to see the admins remove posts and weild the ban hammer

Didn't your A-10C come with training missions? Mine did. This is a qualification campaign. It actually does not contain 'training missions'. Perhaps you should take a closer look before commenting.

I don't mind. It helps them get money. I don't have interest in most of them. If it means they can put out a lot of nice campaigns and in turn lower price of terrian or other content then that would be great. It seems like the KA-50 campaign (3rd party?) was the only bad one so far.

That's how it initially appeared in the Newsletter. I watched the video later and you're correct. But go back and read the email update.

Perhaps you shouldn't get so upset, being that you're a (politically correct descriptor) ED supporter...........LOL

It is clear now why ED was "not able" to develope a dynamic campaign system in 20 years. They have no interest in it. Selling piece-meal scripted missions can serve as a source of continued income, or so they think.

Have long realized that DC isn't good for business. Despite the global triumph of capitalism, this is a tiny one among those that remain unsolved:p
But depends, if leaning towards a bit mass market appeal likely not, but if the target market is SimHQ go-ers or... retro simmers in general why not a DC. The latter won't make as much I reckon.

There I fixed that for you Nate...

All conspiracies about ED's business model aside, I DO find it perplexing that no one (and I mean NO ONE) seems to have been able to develop a dynamic campaign that even comes close to the one that Microprose/Spectrum Holobyte produced for Falcon 4.0 in 1998.

Why is that? Even the "Third Party" dynamic campaigns and the such just fall way short.

Anyone have any ideas on why this is?

Must be really difficult. My guess is that ED can't figure out how to.

Yeah, it's quite the strange thing that. On the one hand they insist on it being "broken", "rubbish", "crap", etc., but on the other hand they are completely unable to make anything comparable themselves...

1. ED prioritized a complex mission editor because its better suited for any defense contract use than a dynamic campaign would ever be. Instructors need to build a reliable scenario with a clear understanding of what could potentially happen and not a gameplay mechanism that generates content for the end user as a means to keep them interested.

2. The way Falcon 4 handles missions is quite a bit different than how ED does it with DCS. As a game it was built from the ground up with integrating into a DC in mind. So for the sake of argument a DC that uses the same sort of concepts found in the F4 campaigns would need ED to make some serious changes to the game in order for it to become a reality.

3. The DCS mission file format is an open format. And as we have seen there are community efforts to create dynamic campaigns either through the use of generating mission files or changing a live mission via the scripting engine. So its not something that is completely closed off and only ED can work toward.

One of the things that bugs me with any DC related discussion is that people tend to ignore the massive differences between DCS and F4 with regard to ground objects. The overall density of map objects is the huge difference. DCS maps have a crazy number of objects and road networks that exist on its maps. For instance the Black Sea map has a little over 26,000 powerlines on it, and its common for other object types to exist in the 1000s range. In terms of roads I wouldn't be shocked if the much smaller Nevada still has 100s of km more roads than any F4 map. It very well might be possible that the city of Tbilisi has more objects in it than the entire Korean theater map in F4 has. Then you have to translate what that means for AI and the overall difference between how the two games handle ground combat. Which to be honest I don't know a whole lot about. In my time playing F4 I never saw 2 ground armies square off in 3d, for DCS that is a different matter.



To be fair I don't think ED have ever come out saying that they are actively working on a dynamic campaign. If they did it would just be added to the list of long term projects that they have talked about and haven't quite become a reality yet. Which would cause much strife and anxiety over the progress of such a project on the forums. I understand the value that some people place on a dynamic campaign, but I'd rather see efforts put toward enhancing scripting engine functionality. In my eyes a DC is just a DC, but new scripting engine features is DC + a bunch of other stuff... Possibly even multiple DC code-bases to choose from.

I defer to Mr Skortch. If anyone knows about the mission editor/game engine interface it's him.

Thanks for the reply.

+1 mrskortch. Thank you for that explanation.

Thanks Skortch, that makes a lot of sense.

I also think that (as far as it goes) the ease of modern multiplayer gives us all the tools (except for maybe time) to create a truly dynamic campaign for ourselves.

Clutch

1. Name one Russian flight sim (there have been many now) that sports a DC?
Otoh name some western flight sims that sports one. There have been quite a few other than flacon4.0. Can you count to ten. There is also one in the works.
My personal thought, this is a "cultural" thing. It could be a bit hard for western ppl to understand, maybe.

2. DC doesn't make as much money. Tis easily understood. But DC would bring more loyal fans/customers I think yes.

PS. 3. Technical difficulties... pffft yeah right. It was done even in the early 90s, I think only the DCS community puts up a mind barrier like that, for a sim that builds entirely without "dynamic" in mind, sure, it would be extremely difficult to change direction!

the engine was already moved to DX11 back in 2012 no doubt earlier maybe 2010, We now have confirmation of a 3rd party releasing the AV-8 however many of us knew of this confirmation back in 2012.

1.5,2.0 or what ever you want to call it was released years ago....
never officially confirmed however it was released https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ZZGOZxM-nc is just 1 example

as for DC's, rather than copy and paste years old training missions into 1.5 or 2.0, ed have had many years to actually release a campaign of quality. Why should a user piece one together using a 4th party "mist" when ed who are supported by consumers have had yonks to actually produce something of quality?

Maple flag missions were made as far back as before 1.2.3, long before combined arms was on the arena. If ED can sell 1.5 maps as far back as 2010 it begs belief that they never employed a 3rd party to make a DC long before the years were wasted on Nevada 2.0 or caucus 1.5. Instead now we have bunch of dodgy dev's who couldn't organise a piss up in a brewery

"ED prioritized a complex mission editor because it's better suited for any defense contract use than a dynamic campaign would ever be."

The above is all that needs to be said. The consumer market (i.e.: you and I) comes second to the private/gov't contract market as far as ED is concerned. Oh, and they have no competition in the "hi-fi" modern aerial combat genre.

Been waiting for the F/A-18 for five+ years, and now they've broken SLI with 1.5/2.0 (well, for a good amount of nVidia users).

Hate to admit it but I forget who was working on an independent DC for DCS, but any word on progress?

The point is, as I've said again and again, a Dynamic campaign doesn't mean it has to be a carbon copy of Falcon 4's system! There were many approaches to Dynamic campaigns in previous flightsims, and while they all were different from each other, they all were a hell of a lot better than simply flying canned missions 1-20 that will be the same everytime except for random elements and have no deeper purpose.

To illustrate that to you, here is the deal: Since I got bored with the topic yesterday, I sat down and in 4 hours wrote a force / stockpile / supply logic in lua.

It works like that:

There are five types of assets to the enemy side (I only wrote logic for the enemy side yet):
1. Fighter force (16 planes)
2. Bomber force (8)
3. SAMs (8)
4. Factories (4)
5. Supply / repair trucks (50)

The first three assets have a replenish rate that varies with the number of operating factories. The more factories inactive, the lower the rate. If a factory is taken out, it will be repaired, with the repair rate depending on the number of supply trucks, which also have a replenish rate that again depends on the number of operating factories. The logic is tuned to and works in conjunction with the Random / Fast Mission Generator of DCS.

Since I'm still brand-new to programming and have no idea how to interface the program with DCS, it requires user input. You enter the number of destroyed assets in the mission debrief, and the program will calculate the max assets available to the enemy for the next mission. If the asset number descends below the number the Fast Mission Generator works with on Max Settings, the program will inform you about it, so that for the next mission the user knows how many of the assets he has to delete via the group menu in the next generated mission. "House rules" are that if you want to go after a factory, you have to select the biggest building that is nearest to the default waypoint 1 in the generated mission. Another house rule is that taking out a bridge nearest to waypoint 1 equals 10 truck kills. Since I also have no idea yet how to program a graphical user interface, the program runs in simple CMD.exe.

Now, for anyone more familiar with programming, or the DCS team itself, it would be child's play to interface the logic with DCS itself and register the asset losses directly from the mission debrief log and limit the number of max assets available automaticly for the next mission.

With or without that interface though, the logic results in meaning and purpose for the player when he flies the missions. He will select targets based on what is most appropriate for the current situation in a dynamic environment. It also has a save function when you leave the program (as in Rogue-like RPGs - saving is only available on leaving the program). It also provides much variation and opportunity for different mission profiles and even planes:
Do you want to take down the fighter force first? Go ahead, but be aware that their replenish rate will be high as long as factory production is still high. So, maybe go ahead and strike a factory first if the mission generator puts out a sensible position of waypoint 1 that offers that opportunity. Have taken down 1-2 factories? Keep an eye on their repair status and maybe go after trucks or a bridge the next mission. Get shot down by SAMs a lot while fighting the remaining fighter force? Fly a dedicated SEAD mission!

THAT is what a Dynamic campaign is about. To give purpose and (with the help of the random mission generator) variation to each mission, so that no mission is ever the same.

Here is the code:



Anyone who is interested in programming, go right ahead and improve it or use it as an inspiration and feel free to think about interfacing it or something similar with the DCS program and a GUI. It is just a bare bones program yet (as I said, I came up with it in just a few hours and I'm still new to programming) that serves as a learning opportunity for me and to illustrate the concept.

Anything that gives purpose and meaning to the missions you fly in a continued and dynamic context is better than just a string of scripted missions that are always the same and - at best - just "branch" into different paths, whose number depends on the time the mission designer put in to write some more scripted missions. Flight sims should not be RPGs with branching, scripted "story lines". Flightsims should be about conducting and / or participating in an air campaign that has certain strategic goals, in an environment that changes dynamically according to the performance of the player and / or the participating sides.

Best regards
heartc

P.S. The randomizer I put into there up at the top was just a preparatory measure. It doesn't serve a function yet, but you can picture how to easily randomize the initial stockpile for example to allow for randomized initial conditions for each new campaign. Also, in the header, it says "for MiG21", because I optimized it for a fast mover. You could easily adopt it though for low intensity CAS planes or easily fly the Mirage in it.

You should have a chat with MBot - he's working on a more fully featured Dynamic Campaign Engine for DCS, based on his Guardians of the Caucasus dynamic campaign.

http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=153020

Nate

Thanks Nate, I know about it. He's way above my pay grade though when it comes to programming still and I doubt there is much of anything I could assist him with. I hope his effort sees the light of day soon. Actually, I don't doubt it, since he already proved his ability with the MiG21 Dynamic Campaign. There is one great fear though I harbor for his effort: That ED, via their frequent patching - including changes to the Mission Editor - might screw up his campaign at a later point and render it unfunctional, unless he constantly keeps up with it. It happened before when someone (I think his nick was Doctor something) wrote a Dynamic campaign for Flaming Cliffs, which worked pretty awesome but was rendered totally unfunctional by ED changing the Mission Editor format from the LOMAC concept to the Black Shark concept.

I'm not saying his system won't be awesome, I believe it will totally rock once it's out. On the other hand though, my approach - albeit more out of neccessity than design, since as I said I have no idea yet about interfacing stuff - is totally independent of game changes, as long as there is a random mission generator. You can even adopt my system to other flightsims and sims in general that have any sort of random mission generation and allow editing of those missions. I wrote a similar program for the naval sim "Iron Clads" for example.

All the best,
heartc

That's interesting, I hadn't considered that the MG would be of much use to campaign makers other than to populate a mission. It is a novel approach. Independence of the mission editor does forgo use the in built supply/resource system though, but if it can be done independently, why not.

IMO as long as values/resources/attrition/results from one mission to the next can be carried through I'm happy. That IMO is the leap that needs to be made, I want the mission result to have an effect on the campaign.

Nate

Exactly. And not by spitting out different branches of scripted missions, but by changing the environment in terms of threat level / threat type / asset number for the next mission.

Of course, a system that would be integrated with the program (DCS) itself could - at one further step - do away with the total randomness of the random mission generator and instead track which specific targets at which specific locations were taken out. My program only tracks and limits the overall availability of enemy force for the next mission and tracks replenish rate of that overall force, but thus still giving incentive and requiring thought about what type of enemy asset to go after in your next mission and / or which is sensible to do according to what the random mission generator came up with.

With regard to anything DCS, no, it wasn't. 1.5 was the first version that ran on DX11.

BTW, when I think about Dynamic Campaigns, I have, besides others, this picture in mind:

https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=fli...amp;FORM=VRDGAR

And yeah, yeah, spare me the BS about "but that's the movies!". I know that that's the movies! But the point is that in real life, air missions have a purpose formulated after a specific goal with regards to the theater of war, to change that theater according to that goal. It might be stupid goals sent downlink from suits sitting in Washington, or sensible goals by two Mavericks in an Intruder, or somewhere in between. But either way, it is never a "sripted" mission with "scripted" threats that someone "scripted" for your enjoyment or frustration and that will always be the same when you refly the "campaign". It is a dynamic application of force into a dynamic environment.

I want the player to think about and figure out his next mission like those two guys did in that video clip. And by God, how similar is that to the experience you got with Tornado for example. "Take out that power plant? Yeah, but you gota go through all these SAMs that you haven't worked on yet in your previous missions. OK, but you can go really low, 200 feet AGL on auto or 100 on manual, come around those hills and then maybe LOFT those bombs into the target to avoid the AAA and be back down in the weeds in a sec. Can you do it? And at night?"

Stuff like that can be done again. They did it in 1993 with Tornado already. It only requires the will.

Besides, "Flight of the Intruder" was a friggin' awesome movie. Best mil aviation movie in my mind.

BTW 2, to give those of you who might have missed out on Tornado because of their young age or something an idea of how awesome this sim was, and to show you how much worth the argument of "It can't be done, it is teh hard. Only Falcon 4 did it, but failed because buggy." really is:

https://youtu.be/fwZUJLXPvBs?t=382

Like several people mentioned above, as Lomac wasnt designed with DC operation in mind, "Save and Adopt" type of DC wont work well imo....

On the other side, realtime ATO generation for AI pilot is already possible with current MIST engine, I think they just make 24/7 MP Dynamic Campaign first instead.

I personally don't think a DC provided by ED will ever happen. They seem to rely on revenue just to continue what they have started (not that any end dates are ever in sight to complete their modules).

For many people, a DC may mean that no further revenue is generated due to the provision of an ever-changing world and fans may be happy to get immersed whilst using their favourite airframe without venturing back to the ED store to purchase the next beta.

These mini campaigns are all too easy to throw out with minimal effort/resources in comparison to the 'World' in order to mmake a quick profit.

I just hope this mechanism doesn't move the focus away from progressing the unfinished content which won't generate more funds into these quick money spinners. Why continue development for no return if quick profits can be made with throw away campaigns!

If ED are counting on revenue from these campaigns just to progress the existing work its simply another example of incompetent planning. Business acumen will always say you don't even start something that isn't profitable and you can't really rely on having to generate more funds with a mechanism that has no guarantee of doing so.

No-one can deny (although the same old faces will try) that ED haven't changed direction many times already.....I just hope this isn't another one. Lets be honest, in 8 years from ED we have a two unfinished theatres (one of which has been knocking around for many years) and a few modules of which only a couple could be classed as 'complete' with many others in various unknown states and years of delays.

At some point these (easy) campaigns will not sell enough so they will not make them anymore. Then maybe a DC will be worth investment and in parallel more complex campaigns that a DC engine would not cover might become best sellers.

For now is very good they produce content for people that enjoy such content (not me sadly as I usually fall asleep during mission 6). That means they will seek to develop this area.

I just want all those super lua scripts to be integrated in a user friendly UI. But I guess then any n00b might be able to do cool missions.

As long as ED keep missing deadlines and spreading their resources so thinly over new announced content the mini-campaigns will probably sell quite well.....because there is very little else to keep the customers entertained.....apart from empty statements, announcements and hints that development continues.

Keep banging that drum.....

Nate

Don't you guys know that Mini-Campaigns, Empty Statements, Announcements, and Hints have Electrolytes!

They got what Sim-Pilots CRAVE!

Lol , thats brilliant

Wrong beverage, that would be Gator-ade!

I've mentioned it elsewhere, but annoyingly the some of the tools to actually do this are already there in DCS. Admittedly it takes a few changes to enable in Lua, but object state I/O from Missions (even in realtime) is in the code and asset tracking capabilities in the mission editor. It's just nobody has tied it together yet, let alone made it into a functional UI.

It still requires something to process the Mission output to input for the next iteration. A few talented Campaign Creators have harnessed parts of it, however it still remains mostly opaque.

Nate

As long as ED keep missing their own deadlines and continue to show minimal 'progress' this drum will keep banging.

It's quite simple really.....if ED can get their act together after what is so far 8+ years of trying then there won't be anything to complain about will there!




You test for and represent ED on these forums, yet your approach is to rely on or look for 3rd parties to find a solution?

P1ss up in a brewery, ash tray on a motorbike or a chocolate fireguard springs to mind!

Ok I'll rephrase it.

DX-11 was running on the EDGE platform as far back as 2010 possibly even earlier. The delay in getting the "Official" DCS version of EDGE 1.5 out, was no doubt due to ED fulfilling their contracts to companies such as AVIA and the like. Nothing like the spin doctors excuses over at the official forums, heck it took how long to fix the AI crossing bridges in the old map? simple things could have been rectified if ED was not dedicated to pumping out maps that would possibly win military contracts.

ED was busy making maps for AVIA with the new engine which later became known as "EDGE" running on DX11. As AVIA go to military expo's all around the world show casing their work, ED looked at it like a free advertising exercise so they put customer complaints on the back burner for 2 or 3 years, employed dodgy 3rd party devs to fill the void and shift the blame of long map delays and official product updates, to having the majority of consumers change their focus on complaining about ED to blaming 3rd parties for their shortcomings. The only way ED will release an official DC campaign is if a military contractor requests it, just like AVIA did 6 or so years ago when they requested a decent map running on DX11 systems.

Where the conspiracy lies however is that AVIA now have the FSX logo on some maps persuading people to believe the maps are running on the old and tired FSX platform (DX-10), however there is official confirmation over at the ED official forums that the maps are in fact running on the EDGE platform (DX11), don't believe me? just search Corsica or EDGE and read the messages posted by the ED testers and moderators back in 2013-14 when these maps from AVIA first came to light.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BXOwnYpqCgA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wNxJYBo5uFU

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tLFs2otuilc

to name a few.....

Now these guys and no doubt others must be paying a bucket load for these maps, considering only AVIA have the license to use them, unlike Nevada which thousands of the public have purchased. Can anyone else see where I am going with this? Why put 1.5 and 2.0 on hold for years and build maps for 1 company to use yet "10's of thousands" (I'm assuming based on hawk sales by none other than "up the chain at VEAO") would have paid at $50 bucks a pop to own the Nevada map.


So why don't we have a dynamic campaign? it will happen when AVIA and the like say they require one and then after 6 years more years it may filter down and we will see a DC for public use.

Is comparing maps and campaigns pointless? nope, completely on board and I'll sum up.

AVIA as a company must have paid millions more for their maps than what the public customers have paid combined for Nevada., Heck AVIA must have paid 10's of millions more than the joint sale of Nevada if ED put development of 1.5, 2.0 and conned BST to drop their planned modules to help push out these maps. Sounds like a tax scam to me, build maps, claim it on tax.

If you want an official ED produced Dynamic Campaign, be prepared to pay 50 odd million to make it happen, that or push AVIA to get ED to make it happen, just like they did with the maps. Looks like AVIA are the puppet masters in this simulator.

Comparisons can be made but they aren't strictly equal. For missions/campaigns the tools are built into the game and I'd argue functions as a critical component of the overall package. Check out the multiplayer server browser and of the 80+ servers I bet you can only count the number of them running built in missions on just one hand. Terrain, and as an extension full fledged modules, are a different matter and generally require a whole lot more know-how and other programs to make it into a reality. The barrier of entry for Joe user to make a campaign and get it sold as a DLC is much lower to trying to make a terrain or aircraft.

I agree with what you are saying, my point is that ED won't implement a DC unless an outside backer steps in and coughs up countless dollars to make it an official reality before the tools and know how filter down for public use.

If Joe public had the ability to put together a DC and get it sold as a DLC, Grimes, Speed or someone else with the scripting know how would have done it yonks back (using external save script data such as notepad). ED could support M-bot in his endeavour to make his DC a reality across the module board, even if that means sharing insider information or design tools to make it work. Instead of another outside external tool to record the data like FsEconomy do with FSX etc etc (disclaimer: I've used fseconomy as an example of external use programs that save game data)

an ingame UI with official ED support is much more valuable than external saves in notepad and the like as previously mentioned in this thread.

That isn't what I've said. Please be kind enough not put words in my mouth. However, feel free to quote where I've said this should be a 3rd party endeavour to create.

I don't think we are at odds with the desire for a DC to be honest, the priority its been given I think is where we diverge.

Oh and just to clear up one thing I don't represent ED in any official capacity, however I can understand why this might be seen this way.

Nate

I didn't quote you or put any words in your mouth, as you can see from my own quote above I said that your APPROACH is to look for others (i.e people outside of ED) to find the solution. It's quite obvious I'm correct in this because your previous statement which I will quote you was the following;



Nobody?......well, if you're not saying that 'ED has tied it together yet' then you're obviously referring to people outside of the company. Why should anyone else other than ED find a solution in the first place? If they didn't stumble from one plan to the next they would know exactly what work they have to do and how they were going to do it.

I think you'd struggle to find anyone who thinks that ED know which direction they're actually travelling in.....and if they do know, it's certainly in their commercial/military interests with the desktop userbase as an afterthought that follows their primary focus and is completely reactive rather than pro-active.

Nope sorry, that's you drawing your own inference to suit your agenda, quelle surprise.

I never said it my approach was to rely on or look for 3rd parties to find a solution. I very much doubt anybody outside ED would be willing to take it on anyway. Some of the tools and hooks in code are there, but not the glue to hold them together. The closest attempt at it will be MBots Dynamic Campaign Engine. But to suggest it will fit seamlessly into DCS as a native campaign engine would is naive.

Nate

No, actually what his exact words meant is that neither ED nor anybody else has 'tied it together'. That is what 'nobody' means. On that notion, i'll gladly send you a bottle of an alcoholic beverage of your choice if you find any dictionary that states that 'nobody' means 'everybody except ED'.

This is hilarious.

Exactly my point Sobek.



'Nobody' obviously is everyone so a real big thanks for clarifying that.....and because ED wasn't specifically mentioned in Nate's post, then he's including people outside of the company too hence my question with regards why anyone outside of ED would even be remotely responsible for finding a solution.

The only hilarious thing here is watching people like you dig a hole and then jump into with both feet on the defensive when it's quite clear you're not actually reading the previous posts.

I think you must just see key words about DCS/ED which send you into a rage. Has it ever occurred to you that you don't actually help ED's cause?.....I often think you do more damage to their reputation by getting involved in discussion whilst representing them.

EDs communication and customer relations are thought of as paticularly poor and abrasive.....ever wondered why?

I never said anybody should be responsible for anything. Please quote me if I have. You are drawing that inference alone. To directly answer your question above, nobody is actually responsible for finding any solution, not even ED, even though they are best placed to do it.

Nate

I'm not going to repeat myself over and over again for the benefit of you and Sobek.

Read.the.thread.

The second time you have stated something is 'my inference'. I know it's completely alien to you, and ED have not grasped the concept......but this is a FORUM. It's probably worth you looking up the definition and appreciating what the mechanism is and how they function.

I answered your question above? You, incorrectly, inferred my viewpoint from something I said, and I addressed that, and, I also answered what you inferred from it. What's the problem?

Nate

If you quote your thread 10 times it still won't change the fact that your are (deliberately or not) misrepresenting the content of other people's posts.

People are expressing opinions Sobek....OPINIONS. I don't need to put "In my opinion........" at the start of every post because this is a forum and this is what forums are for.

You seemingly have no idea of how a forum works, what purpose they serve and the definition of a forum itself. I can appreciate why this format may be troublesome for you because the ED boards isn't a forum because people aren't allowed to air their opinions - it's simply a controlled message board whereby content that isn't agreed upon by the developers and their staff is removed in order to create a biased set of messages that only serve to reflect what the devs and staff want others to see.

I've quoted Nate a couple of times, and when that happens it's quite clear it's a quote (it even says 'quote' and puts a pretty little box around the text).



You'll notice I haven't referenced a set of minutes from any recent ED board meetings - and in that vain, neither have you when disputing anything you don't like.

Definition of a forum, - it's summarised for you at the top of the page.

I had a good laugh, thank you - I needed it

I'm perfectly fine with people posting their opinions. On the other hand, id doesn't seem like you are.



So, in your OPINION, a discussion on a forum involves disregarding what other people say and instead talking about what your (admittedly very special) perception of what they say is, then getting upset when said people correct you on your perceptions because they obviously don't know what they were saying? That does sound like the antithesis to what a discussion should be.

And Paradaz, explain me this, what bearing has EDs boards on any of this?

It's really very simple Sobek, you've made it very clear to everyone why I've mentioned the ED boards.

You're trying to emphasise my reference to OPINIONS, yet you also mention that people (you) are trying to 'correct' these perceptions! You're really trying to correct what I perceive and believe?.....my opinion!

That's exactly why the ED boards are not worth visiting.....it's not a discussion, large sections are selective, biased nonsense controlled by ED and their mods.

If you read this thread carefully like I politely asked you to do so many times you'll see several quotes and an entry where I said Nate's APPROACH is to...... now that isn't a quote, it wasn't part of quoted text - its part of my opinion whether you like it or not.

You may notice that only you and Nate are challenging and stating my opinion is either incorrect, needs changing or that I'm inferring something - deal with it in the manner SimHQ requests their community to do so and not in the heavy-handed manner ED think everything they don't fully agree with should be handled. You both represent ED and reflect the same behaviour that is associated with the ED boards - how coincidental.

In case you hadn't noticed this is SimHQ where opinions and discussion of opinions are encouraged......not corrected, changed, altered or fixed!

You'd do well to try and understand and appreciate that.

Hang on, you are guilty of this yourself - re-interpreting things that I've said in this very thread for one example. Even when I've attempted to clarify my position, you've refused to discuss it, nor apologise.

You might say that's your "Opinion" afterwards, but you are phrasing your reinterpretation of what I've said as a statement of fact. This is deceitful.

Nate

Sigh, and so it goes on.....these aren't the ED boards as I've said before. It's not even worth attempting to discuss anything with you or Sobek because you seem incapable of discussing anything and would rather use your time to suggest how other peoples' opinions are incorrect and need 'fixing'. (we've also moved onto deceitful now). I'm not going to continue the last 3 pages of tit-for-tat rubbish about how supposedly I'm mis-quoting you, putting words in your mouth or being deceitful, none of which have happened and if you actually read the thread from the first post onwards (how many times have I requested you do this?) you may actually notice that.

I've seen the ED mods attempts at trying to close down SimHQ threads before, by taking things so far off topic, playing the victim, not having the hard facts yadda, yadda, yaddaa and I'm not going to give you the pleasure of taking this the same way and getting it locked up either just because the content may be something neither of you like.

Everyone else is ignoring your off-topic rants, I'll do the same from this point on so that you don't get the satisfaction of getting SimHQ threads locked up. The topic up for discussion is ED's focus on Campaigns for a quick profit and how it may be detrimental to all the other unfinished content that is spread within the 'World'.

WHAT? is the big deal with this. ED got these campaigns fully packaged from third parties, Got them pretty cheap I presume. Then they put them out and turn a buck from those who CHOOSE to buy them. They aren't required content. No one is forced to buy them. ED had to put very minimal, if any effort into getting them ready to sell.

ED doesn't have to expend any effort, they make a little money, and they continue to WORK on the other projects.

So, unless someone has solid proof that the folks at ED are spending all their money and time on cocaine and Lady-Boys, I don't really see a downside to them making a little extra money with a minimum of effort.

Sheesh, the sky is not falling because they chose to release a couple of pay-to-play campaigns.....

Clutch

How am i interfering with your freedom to express your opinion? Because i stated that you misrepresented the meaning of somebody elses post? Freedom of speech does not extend your freedoms to the point where you can falsify somebody elses statements and additionally grant you immunity from that somebody else to step in and correct your perception. You are way off base to even suggest that that is in any way an interference with your rights to post here. In fact, that is one part of being in a discussion. Maybe it is you who needs education on that.



I do not represent ED in any capacity nor am i associated with them in any way at this time. You can ask anyone.



So would you with my above statement, given that i have explained it before. Another thing you conveniently disregard to paint me into a corner whenever it suits you.

No, the sky isn't falling....yet, but this is the sort of discussion we're prompting - it's good to see/hear others opinions on how they see this. I'm just a little weary and mentioned it many months ago that I hope this isn't the start of a push for campaign after campaign. Yes, this is third-party content (ED have released their own too recently), but ED also have to put their own resources to patch the game to allow and prepare for the release of this kind of content as mentioned in the newsletter 2 weeks ago. I highlighted part of your quote in red, because that's is not quite correct as they had to specifically create a patch just to support this. I would also assume (you never know with ED) that we're talking more than just creating an installer here, I would expect QA to be involved, lots of testing, some possible bug-fixing, making further changes to ensure compatibility with current/future branches that ED are concurrently working on and then there is additional work and resources required to prepare it for the release itself.

In a nutshell, my fear is that easy profits for campaigns like this could mean that ED resources are pushed into more and more campaigns, more and more patches to support it which may have a detrimental effect on progress of unfinished content (of which there is a lot) especially when ED won't receive additional funds for that work....it may be all too easy to shift focus - what happens when there are multiple campaigns in development at the same time etc!

I may be wrong, but is it not the release of 3 campaigns in as many months?.....it's certainly more progress than anything else we've been informed of.....I mean, the Hawk was completely unplayable for a while and that according to "Skatezilla" was a simple compiler error! Priorities? - which is more important to the customers? Do ED's priorities in making a little extra money completely overshadow customers who have paid for early release software and/or does the term 'beta' mean they can pretty much do what they want and get away with anything banded under that term?

I wonder at what rate you would consider Campaign releases to have a negative impact on EDs other work, say the F-18, or Nevada for example? One a quarter? One a month?

Nate

I have no idea and nor do I care.....thats for ED to manage.

But it's safe to say that when version 2.5 merges the 1.5 and 2.0 branches the more campaigns that exist there is undoubtedly more work for ED to do to ensure compatibility because the 3rd parties that create campaigns won't be responsible!

Finally, something we can agree on.

Nate

Ooh, you're so deceitful cutting off my quote like that and inferring something else.

On a serious note I can see you're not disputing the additional work I mention though....because isn't it true that whatever involvement ED have for the campaigns (from themselves and 3rd parties) that are part of the 1.5 or 2.0 dev branch will ALL have to be repeated in terms of testing/recompiling/QA (if it exists) and further bug-fixing, to ensure compatibility with a new 2.5 branch - and the more campaigns that exist, the more this work is magnified!

This is another example where ED would never have planned for, simply because they probably didn't forsee taking external campaigns from years back or more recently and incorporating them into current builds. We all know that ED haven't got a good track-record (in fact none whatsoever) in getting anything out on time to their own scheduled timeline. There is no possible way that these campaigns can help their cause but there is every possibility that it may hinder.

A push or focus on these campaigns most certainly negates the previous comment by 'Clutch' that ED doesn't have to expend any effort

And yet, as you yourself admitted 3 posts ago, release of campaigns doesn't mean that it is to the detriment of their other ongoing work.

Nate

Are you referring to this from the first page? I don't see any mention within my last 3 posts.



Well, we don't know that is a fact but we'd like to think it's true....but that's exactly why it's a concern. Unless ED now have a 'Campaigns' department then someone has to do the work when they would have otherwise been tasked with something else.

I guess it's all in ED's management or resources, and if it's anything like the management of timely releases then it will be another classic example of ineptitude. Given their past history even you can surely see why this topic was raised for discussion....with Nevada and DCS 2.0 which was released half-baked with half the functionality originally envisaged I'd much rather ED focused on the existing work required to finish off these components than having to divert staff that may have been involved in current development into patches/bug fixes and the niff-naff and trivia for internal and 3rd party campaigns which may never have been part of the original planning.

I'd agree, there is no evidence of how ED manages the campaign production cycle to determine anything really.

Nate

Good answer....because that also proves you are just as clueless as the rest of us when we air our opinions for discussion, and it certainly shows that no-ones opinion needs 'fixing' on SimHQ if you have no factual evidence at hand when trying to dispute ED's incompetence.

And yet you never get tired of passing judgement about peoples professionalism when you, by your own admission, know nothing at all about the circumstances they work under. Isn't that somewhat unprofessional?

So it's 'unprofessional' to have an opinion now Sobek? This is SimHQ not ED's boards....opinions are encouraged. If these forums are here to discuss and share opinions about various 'Sim' products then we're effectively passing judgement about people's professionalism all the time - unfortunately in ED's case a lot of it is negative and for valid reason.

For the last time in reply to your off-topic rants, I'll refer you to the definition of a forum and this time I'll go as far as typing it out for you.

a meeting or medium where ideas and views on a particular issue can be exchanged

The circumstances that ED work under are completely irrelevant. ED take money in exchange for a product - customers care about the product. ED in the last 8 years have failed to deliver their product on time. If you want to off on a tangent about circumstances, working conditions or something else then create a new topic and go ahead and discuss it.

It goes both ways, if you express an opinion others are allowed to comment on it, that is how a forum works.

Nate

Yep, and I'm perfectly happy with that - not once have I attempted to stop anyone from having or stating their opinion.

Sobek asked me a question with regards to whether not knowing the circumstances by which an opinion is informed is unprofessional. In case it wasn't clear with my last reply then the answer is no, of course it isn't. We have opinions about everything and everything in life without knowing the circumstances.

However, forums are also bound by a set of rules (note, I didn't say dictatorship which would apply elsewhere) so that our discussion can remain civilised. One of these is to remain on-topic so that it doesn't become a free-for-all and stray from the discussion in hand. Have a quick count of yours and Sobek posts in this thread where you're not discussing the focus of ED campaigns. Enough said.

I'm also guilty of going off-topic too, where I stupidly replied to yours and Sobek's posts.

Fair enough - I can't seem to find that particular rule on SimHQ but I'll take you word for it. I will agree that some might express opinions about everything and everything in life without knowing the circumstances, but if that is the case, such opinions are likely to be called out for what they are, ill-informed and baseless.

Nate

Where did i say that? Your creative reading skills are a thing of wonder.

It is unprofessional to publicly pass judgement without proper knowledge of the circumstances.
Having an opinion does not in all cases meet the criterion of judgement being passed, therefore it can NOT AT ALL be said that i wrote that it is unprofessional to have an opinion. Your deduction has failed you once again. Maybe you should give it a rest.



And me finding one (or in fact most) of your opinions poorly informed does not in any way impact your ability to voice it on this forum. If you find my statements untrue or you don't agree with them, be my guest and argue your point some more or add me to your ignore list.




You repeat yourself in absolutely failing to describe how anybody interfered with you voicing your opinion. You are in fact chastising and lecturing people for something they never did. It's kind of obnoxious.



Which one?

Well I can name the spitfire, the p-47 and the Normandy map. Those were to be released in the early half of 2015. Wags words, not speculation. 2016 now and still no sign.

That doesn't constitute all of EDs products over the last 8 years.

No but those three are over a year late and counting. Not that impressive really is it? Maybe you can throw some spin on that?
EDGe was supposed to by released every year for the past how many? Finally came out this year. Years later

ED was left picking up the pieces. Maybe they should have announced early on that the original schedule will most likely be unrealistic. That's all i am personally willing to fault them for.



And didn't cost you or anyone else one dime. Where i come from, beggars can't be choosers.

What has cost to the customer got to do with professionalism and meeting target dates? Isn't that what you're now disputing? There is no relation......or does no monetary cost mean it gets swept under the carpet and/or therefore can't be classed as delayed/not met the target date?

Picking up the pieces of their own fiasco.
They always announce their schedules are most likely unrealistic with the catch all "everything is subject to change". They're basically saying "were talking BS and have no idea when things will be released"

So what? They eventually deliver high quality products. Would you rather they compromise the quality instead of the development time?

I would rather they finish what they start before throwing more products onto the production line. Especially when they have folks money. The announcement and then release of their trainer and it's continued development has come at the cost of delays to previously announced products. That is unprofessional and shows a disgusting level of disregard for their customers.

No-one is disputing the quality of the products, but I'm gobsmacked.....are you talking 'eventual deliveries' and professionalism in the same sentence?

Basically everything is just purdy as long as it eventually arrives! Wow.

I think your idea of professionalism is grossly different to mine. Is it just ED that this version of 'professionalism' applies to or everything in life as long as a product arrives at some point in time?

ED don't have to balance quality, they have to start planning properly.

Under some circumstances that can't be excluded with our level of knowledge, it is the best you can hope for. I'm actually gobsmacked that someone who regards himself as such a capacity in project management doesn't consider any other possibility than the one that allows himself to berate ED.



Heureka!

It's not like it's a one-off Sobek, everything from Blackshark/Blackshark2 and the first announcement of the Nevada alpha has been nothing short of an absolute cluster with ED.

If 'hoping for the best' is good enough for you then great.....that's not how I work or would expect from anyone/any company in a professional capacity whatsoever. As I stated previously, any company that delivers a product to a customer is merited on exactly that - the delivery of the end product and not how what circumstances that may or may not affect them along the way.

Can a moderator stick a fork in this?

It is tiresome.

Yes let's stick a fork in all the threads that folk find tiresome as they lack the capacity to stay away from the threads they find tiresome. Sheesh

[Text deleted] would make a good community manager for ED with his thoughtless thinking, hit up the moderators at ED and see if there are positions vacant. Sobek lost the Moderator title, probably by no means other than spreading inaccurate information about ED campaigns.

Do not characterize other SimHQ members. Address the message content, not the author's characteristics.

Spreading inaccurate information about ED campaigns? How about yourself spreading inaccurate information about me?

Since you are obviously wondering, i quit moderation because i no longer have the time required to do it. Nobody at ED *ever* asked me to quit or suggested anything of the sort. Now, if you could just stop talking out yer behind about me, that'd be dandy. In case you are wondering, yes, that is egg on your face.

And just what "inaccurate information" did i spread, hmm?

As this is an open community forum and not a dictatorship, the definition of an open forum which has been stated previously in this very thread. Myself and every other person here is entitled to give their opinion. In this case, It is my interpretation of why you are not a Moderator at ED. For the record, I used the word "probably", meaning it was a 50\50 chance that I would be correct in my statement. However as you have stated your facts (which we are lead to believe is your honest opinion), my interpretation of why you are not longer a moderator over at Ed falls into the category of the other 50% chance that I was wrong.

You didn't even know what the chance of you being correct was because you just wildly speculated. I'm still waiting for ONE piece of evidence where i spread wrong information about ED campaigns. Otherwise i might just start to speculate that you are willfully making stuff up just to character assassinate me.

You know what, a decent person just might have gone ahead asked me instead of going straight to spreading unsubstantiated hearsay.

The moderation game is a tough one over there, your better off not being involved any longer...I think many people stay away from that forum because it is too restrictive

For the record, I was only half wrong. 50% wrong as previously stated.

Oh indeed, checked there a moment ago to see I have been issued a 1 month ban. It just confirms my suspicion that [edited] legacy lives on with the mentality of that very same controlled environment.

Unable to voice an opinion here with out being banned over there.

[Text deleted] is a prime example of the [edited] mentality shared by other moderators over there and past moderators. Just doesn't know when to quit when his point being made has no merit. It's a dictatorship over there and that same mentality is not welcome here.

Do not characterize other SimHQ members. Address the message content, not the author's characteristics.

This must be the famous Schrödinger's Weasel. You sir, are a genius.

It kinda like fight club ..... first rule of fascist censorship ...... we don't talk about fascist censorship

It must be nice being a mod over there , don't like what someone says .... Ban hammer
Plus the perks of a snappy looking uniforms with great looking boots and a cap with a pretty symbol ......
kinda reminds me of this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aLJUocaDYw0

I wonder if they will some day have a similar realisation?

And I thought the Community Hall was a tough place.
I stand corrected CyBerkut.

You have my respect, and thanks for doing a tough job.

These guys aren't making it any easier either.......

Lighten up people, we lose this guy, and you lose a forum.
Think about it.

Damn straight!

Thanks for hanging in there Cyberkut

welcome back force10. I hope things are a lot better for you now

Thank GOD.......

This forum is a moderator eater.
Welcome back.

Have you seen CyBerkut around, on the floor anywhere???.......I know he's been drinking heavily.....

I datagorically ceny tuch a shing!

As I understand it from Force10, he's still swamped at work. I'm glad to see he's OK, even if he is here less frequently than he would like.

I just logged into the ED forums for myself out of curiosity....

"You have been banned for the following reason:
Repeated 1.13 infractions

Date the ban will be lifted: Never"


I guess that could have happened at any point from my last successful login which was November 2015. Also noteworthy is that they are happy for me to still login to the e-shop, so they are happy to take my money but not for me to express an opinion on their products !

Wow, mind you this reiterates my stance that the forum is run with the same mentality as [edited]....

Take the money from the [edited] but god help them if they express an opinion about it.