Define "done" ...in ED's case, it rarely is and you most definitely have been.




Amen to that.

One phrase that springs to mind

You can only p1ss on my back so many times and tell me its raining

Some just don't learn

I was a fanboy once upon a time. I don't think it's that. It's the fanbois who are to blame. Those with the mentality that "we have to be grateful to ED and support them otherwise this genre is dead."


What does number of aircraft have to do with anything?


Again, please don't count your chickens until the eggs hatch.

From their last newsletter: "This is a FREE extension pack to owners of the Nevada map."
Does this mean there'll be PAID extension packs later on? Why the emphasis on "FREE"??

Because it is work that was not originally planned.

What they really need to improve in NTTR are

- Ground textures
- mesh resolution (it pretty much sucks right now)
- those shadows that are baked into the textures are pretty bad. Considering they have shown pics of terrain dynamic shadowing, I think those should also go.

Well, the planned work was still FREE to Beta buyers of DCS A10C.

The extension pack is FREE to everyone that basically has NTTR, so why emphasize FREE? Whether the work was planned or not, everything they added is given for free so why the emphasis? Are you saying that everything they plan to release AFTER a set point of the planning period becomes FREE?

You asked a question, you were given the answer.

You don't believe that running a dozen different high fidelity modules with differing avionics in a high fidelity environment is more demanding on coding, memory and processing than running the same avionics in different skin models in a low fidelity environment?

I'd noticed that too, they are WIPS aren't they, they're not going to leave it like that ?

The emphasis on "FREE" is just a dirty trick. They want us to download the
upcoming free version of the DCS 2.5 Caucasus theatre and think it is a good
idea to purchase more and more modules to participate in SP/MP flying to
convert the casual pilot to a DCS fanboi!

I can already see it: the different versions merge and pilots rejoin to fly online
and enjoy their hobby. That has to be stopped! We should complain relentlessly
about their business model till they (ED) understand they have to fail. The community
can't tolerate that they (ED) develop their software from DX8 to DX11 (for free ... oops,
free is ugly) with countless updates (again, for free ... this free thing and ongoing product
support since - ehh, Lomac, sucks somehow or what? Sounds like ongoing alpha or beta).
Better call the product "done" and program a sequel (like COD or BF does).

I'm flying Falcon, Flanker, Jane's F/A-18, Lomac, FC1, FC2, DCS-A10, DCS-BS and
BMS online in squadrons since 1998 like FreeBirds, 331st, 941st and 185th. If i read
your posts there is nothing more evil than ED, DCS 2.5, the F/A-18C, business plans,
ED's road map, their focus, their plans or whatever. But i'm confident pilots will ignore
your ongoing hatred and keep having fun. Well, i have

You should really pull your head out of there.

No, I like it in here, it's my little DCS World where everything's sweet and rosy.

It really baffles me how ED and DCS can be so polarizing for some people. You either love it or hate it? Nothing in between?
Sure, the fanbois started all this by NEVER admitting that DCS or ED have some flaws. Their forum sanitizing protocols don't help either. They are pathetic, yes, but out of there I'd expect people to be a bit more relaxed.


EDIT: on second thought it's probably like this: ED forums censor people that don't "fully" appreciate their game.
Pissed off people come here to vent their frustrations (I've done it too).
Fanbois raid these forums and freak out at the fact someone is critical of ED.
Non-fanbois become more extreme on their positions.
Repeat.

History is a good teacher: extremism generates extremism.

Exactly. The ED mods are completely oblivious to this and think they can control the message by controlling the messengers.

Doesn't work.



This is the heart of the matter right here.

Now don't get me wrong, these additional airfields should've been there from the start, and it was a mistake that needed correcting and I'm glad they did. Kudos for doing it.

The point is that it illustrates their difficulty in planning their way forward. They took literally years to make Nevada, then it comes out in Alpha and everyone is wondering why the place has empty desert where airfields should be. There is a loud sound of collective face palming as they go back and insert this work into a schedule that already had been pushed so far to the right that even neo Nazis thought it was a bit extreme.

I get the feeling that 50% of the updates they have released and announced they are working on fit in the "not originally planned" category. They started with 500 and settle on 1000.
Until they're working on it and realize "oh!" and then have 2000.

At some point you have to temper your ambitions and lock down features to make a release date...any release date, just pick one.

Feature Creep Simulator: World



The Jedi Master

They're fanbois to, because



They're just the flip side of the coin, like you said.

Which didn't make any sense.



Who said anything about low fidelity? As for number of aircraft, it will be more demanding on the coders, ie, more aircraft = more work, but should **NOT** affect memory or processing requirements. Are you saying running more aircraft = needs more RAM = needs better CPU? Preposterous!



I'm confident pilots have a better ability of reading and understanding my posts than you.



Indeed! People seem to want to interpret my negativity about ED to = negativity to everything ED/DCS. Must be very difficult, their lives.



I've not paid much attention to ED recently, but when they said they're doing Nevada/NTTR, I expected it will include EVERYTHING. Heck, they focused so much on how "detailed" Las Vegas was going to be, I thought it went without saying that all other airfields will be present and detailed as well. This is, after all, a company attempting to build a COMBAT flight simulator, not a "screenshot Las Vegas" simulator.

It's nothing more than incompetent planning in general. It's clear there is no desktop roadmap, how are ED ever supposed to plan something properly when they just react to changes, content and functionality within their commercial/government arm?

It's also laughable that the response to feature creep and delays is 'you're getting more functionality'....that's beyond lame, it doesn't even verge on being a viable 'excuse'.

Get.the.core.engine.in.place.first. Multiple.dev.streams.simply.don't.work.

Ice, I think that you need to "simma da na" man. OK, first of all, you took one sentence from my entire statement.

Look at my entire statement paragraph:

"People also forget that DCS World 1 had a lot of problems when it first came out. It ran great after they fixed the problems and has been mostly flawless up till the release of 1.5. You also need to remember that this is a completely different animal now. You're talking about running many different aircraft modules in the same environment, unlike another sim that is basically using the same cockpit avionics with different skins. This is a huge leap for any company and there are certain to be problems."

I wasn't picking on the other sim and honestly I think you're just looking to start a fight where there is no fight, I was basically stating that the requirements to run DCS are much higher because of the different aircraft and avionics. OK, and just to be specific, when I ran Janes F/A-18E and Falcon 4, they only required about 14k bandwidth. Now, DCS world requires about 256K. So I was just making the point that mixed avionics, differential airframes, high fidelity cockpits, number of aircraft and environments were more taxing on bandwidth.

There is a difference between a 1998 sim and what's available now was my point. And there is a direct correlation between the number of clients or aircraft connected to a server and the amount of bandwidth required and high fidelity cockpits, airframes and terrain factor into that!

Then you responded:

You're talking about running many different aircraft modules in the same environment
What does number of aircraft have to do with anything?

Then I said:

You don't believe that running a dozen different high fidelity modules with differing avionics in a high fidelity environment is more demanding on coding, memory and processing than running the same avionics in different skin models in a low fidelity environment?

Then you responded with the above statement.

So, what part of what I wrote was so completely wrong in your opinion? Because I would really like to know.

First off, I didn't respond to your post in the "OMG!! He's picking on another sim!!". Chillax.

DCS requirements are higher, sure. They're pushing better graphics both in an outside the aircraft. Done.
DCS bandwith requirements are higher, sure. Not really a problem as internet connections have greatly improved over the years. Done.

But what does number of aircraft have to do with anything?
Are you talking about bandwidth? Like I said, so what? Is DCS really maxxing out a DSL connection?
Are you talking about memory and processor? So what? Is DCS really maxxing out RAM and CPU capabilities?
Are you talking about detailed avionics and advanced flight models? So what? Again, the advances in tech make this possible but is DCS maxxing out their capabilities now?

First off, you could be flying with 10 different, high fidelity aircraft, but all the sim has to worry about on your end is YOUR high fidelity aircraft, not the other 10. If all those aircraft fired a missile at you at the same time, all the sim has to worry about on your end is YOUR high fidelity aircraft and how those 10 other objects are going to affect you. For a COMBAT flight simulator, these allowances have to be built in the code and not be dependent o how many aircraft are flying. My point is: whether flying alone or with 10 different aircraft, the sim is the same.



Number of clients = increased bandwidth. Okay. This issue is present since forever and is present whether the sim is low fidelity or high fidelity. Maybe high fidelity transmits more data, so needs more than a low fidelity sim would, but the issue (more clients = needs higher bandwidth) exists for both types of sims. As for the DCS issue: so is the AMRAAM problem only existing in MP? Does the game stutter on bomb explosion only in MP?

High fidelity cockpits and airframe = increased hardware requirements. Again, this is not affected by number of aircraft as you're only really flying one at a time. If you're telling me that if you connect with 10 other people who each fly a different high fidelity aircraft, and YOUR sim on YOUR end calculates for each of their avionics and flight models, then ED has to go back to the drawing board.... or you greatly misunderstand how the sim works.

More objects will need more resources (better hardware), bad weather will need more resources, but this is a hardware issue. If your GPU struggles with rendering the sim + 10 other aircraft, it should not matter whether those aircraft are AI or high-fidelity human-piloted aircraft. End point: You need a better GPU.

Terrain = more detailed terrain (TREES!!!) needs better hardware. Again, granted. But this has nothing to do with number of aircraft.

So again; what does number of aircraft have to do with anything? You make a claime "there is a direct correlation," I do not see it. Please show me the correlation.