The DLC's author has a number of terrain mods available so it is easy to get a preview of what the potential for the DLC is.

So I'm pretty confused here....

ED has one module in Beta status (Bf109K-4) and Belsimtek, which is the only 3rd party to release multiple modules, has 1/4 modules in Beta (the Mi-8 and it certainly doesn't seem to be a Beta - its awesome).

Also, there are 2 brand new campaigns for NTTR and a total of 4 campaigns for the Caucasus (1 was released before NTTR, 2 user created campaigns, and the last is for the Ka-50).

So what is all the "unfinished work" that has been paid for?

Are you recommending that ED halt the work or release of every 3rd party till all the existing 3rd party modules are out of Beta (like VEAO and Aviodev)?

Are you saying that others who create content cannot release anything till everything else is done? We shouldn't get to try anything new till DCS 2.5 is out? Polychop shouldn't release the Gazelle until 2.5 since there could be a problem that requires a patch?

Is it terrible that content is released for our entertainment while we wait for DCS2.5, etc. What about the fact that many of the new features we want are already part of 1.5 and 2.0. I think it would have sucked if ED held off releasing DCS2 with NTTR and the new NTTR campaigns just so they could release 2.5 as the first look at new maps and new content. Why wait so long?

All of this sounds remarkably nuts, is this what you are recommending?

Please fill me in...

-Nick

I guess one could argue the DCS WWII project?

- Spitfire
- P-47D
- Me.262A1
- The Normandy Map

Keeping in mind...over 400 people payed $100 or more 3 years ago.

I see you didn't mention the Nevada map...are we now supposed to consider content listed as Alpha "finished"?

I'm not saying I 100% agree with the original topic...it just seemed you neglected to mention some things that are hardly finished.

Is that a serious question? It had nothing to do with 3rd party content.......it had everything to do with ED taking far too many projects on with resources spread far too thinly, to the point where new platforms and content is announced regularly and not a single product is ever completed.

Let's not pretend for one second that ED planned to have the 1.5 and 2.0 branches in concurrent development.....that happened because ED couldn't plan a piss up in a brewery and rushed out the NTTR map without all the features because it was already 5 years late. Releasing it half-baked meant development was split in two.

Does the WW2 content also ring any bells? Already well over a year late and no real signs of anything going on......at least we can look forward to the paywhere carrier soon if nothing else - hopefully they'll also give us the highly sought after functionality that will allow us to walk around it first-person, said no-one ever!

They also paid that money to someone else and ED picked up the pieces when it fell apart. They also paid into a Kickstarter project, which is effectively a diffused version of "angel funding". There is no guarantee of a return and the majority of projects like this do not make it very far. It's great that the project is still moving forward and many parts of the project may be done this year (3 out of 4 on your list). But actually getting a return from something like Kickstarter is more of a bonus than anything else IMHO.



NTTR has planned upgrades, but I'd hardly call it unfinished. As a customer who bought it, I have no complaints and I'm not aware of any specific limitations for using the map. I would like the "merge" to be finished, but I'm having a lot of fun with DCS nonetheless. There may be more features for NTTR in the future, but what we have now is excellent.

I think too many people prefer to see the glass half-empty, even when its mostly full. Thats my take.

-Nick

ED was listed as a partner on the project. The money now resides in the code and models that ED has.

Okey dokey.

-Nick

In my opinion you're onto something, its just that you have it the wrong way around. ED have the opportunity to pull off something really special however they are not even close to fulfilling their potential.

What doesn't help is the community who readily accept anything they just throw out......as for suggesting that the 'glass is mostly full' at this point in time is a perfect example and it's no wonder why ED continue to start new modules, announce new content and leave everything else unfinished if they're getting feedback like that and assume they're doing everything just fine.

The glass is most definitely half-full because ED have a lot to finish off and a long way to go before the 'World' really starts coming together......it's still a jigsaw puzzle with two corners and half of of the pieces missing - we still can't really see what their vision is because there are lots of areas that only have 2 or 3 pieces connected together and nothing linking them to each other.

Split development branches with differing functionality
Random mix of airframes
Ground radar
Multiseat
Integration of theatres
Era specific content

I could go on.......but these are key parts of the puzzle that just aren't linked at the moment. Yet people seem happy for campaign after campaign that will only work in one of the Dev branches for starters. I want to see progress in the things that really matter.....not having ED constantly providing little patches and updates that only support new content.

So now we're getting textures DLC? What the hell is this? We pay 60 EUR per plane
and now we can't even have a supposedly "free" map that belongs in 2016 without paying even more?


This DLC thing is getting ridiculous.
Get your #%&*$# together ED.



Ohh no, I posted a "negative" opinion. What are you gonna do now? Trace my IP and ban me? Neg rep me?
You are a JOKE!

I see. Could you do an exercise and re-write that without being passive/aggressive?
Just a thought...

Yep, and I've pretty much bought everything they and 3rd parties have released with exception to 3 aircraft, however I won't be buying any more content until things improve.

I can't see the value anymore in pre-release/alpha/beta payware because it never gets completed.

There really is no argument for 'what if money stops flowing'.....through decent planning ED shouldn't know exactly if something is worth starting, resources required and time needed however everything they have ever done falls drastically short in every respect. I'm not particularly thrilled to bankroll ED under the guise of new platforms if it's actually funding previous content that wasn't planned properly - which in my opinion is very likely what is happening.

That's DLC.

You gotta pay me for that.

See? not that hard- also more likely to get an answer...

I'd say it's not confirmed that it's a Pay-for DLC.
Even if it was we have no info on how much, and in any case it's always optional.

The quality of the man's work is really high, so if it was in the range of 5$-9$ I'd be happy to actually buy it.

Plus as anyone else noticed, it's just textures so not having them it's largely a non-issue.

If it was a 3D-rework of the map it'd be a different topic.
Cheers,
stay positive.

Not sure this is entirely true. Some of the content we see at the consumer level is just regurgitated stuff from their private contracts thats worked for public consumption. It explains why a lot of puzzle pieces don't fit.

Before Nevada was announced as coming to DCS and nobody knew anything...if ED had polled their customers with a fill in the blank on what theater they would like to see next...Nevada would have received exactly zero mentions. I can't imagine anyone would have said "How about you spend 5 years on a map where no conflict took place...ever."

Obviously, many folks are happy with Nevada. That can more likely be attributed to being tired of flying in the Black Sea for 15 years...and just being happy to have somewhere else to fly. It's not a conflict area most customers wanting to simulate being a wartime pilot would pick.

A stroke of genius? C'mon now. If you were given a choice of NTTR or the Persian gulf/Iraq I'm 100% positive you would chose the gulf. I'm 100% positive 100% of customers would chose the gulf. A hell of a lot more revenue for the developers than NTTR. I'm 100% positive there would be more customers purchasing the gulf than NTTR.

Iv'e just stopped blindly handing over money to developers for Alpha's that may take years to finish after they have your money. After they collect your cash...there really isn't any incentive to finish in a timely manner.

As far as Nevada goes...DCS World is already a simulation of what the real guys do...having a simulation of what the real guys simulate is a layer of redundancy that doesn't appeal to me.

So if the money stopped rolling in now for ED do you think they they should be obligated to finish what they started.......or just down tools because they've already done more than enough?

The Obligation remains, of course it does. The argument is that the Ability to fulfil the obligations may be adversely affected with fewer resource available to apply. Using your example of no more cash coming in, I'd imagine any cash reserve being eaten up quite quickly.

Would you not agree?

Nate

I'm sure NTTR was a great choice in terms of sales. Thing is, you're not the customer.

but the gulf/Iraq would have been a better choice in terma of sales, which was my point. I'm well aware a lot of folk purchased NTTR. I would venture that those sales were down to the fact it was the first map to be released. The old map being the only one for, well forever.
I'm not the customer? please explain