Not sure if there is already a thread about "weekly" updates but I didnt found it so I think it would be nice to have in ShQ a discussion thread for updates so we can talk about them.

todays update is:

DCS 2.0.5.3140 Update 2

Introduced new F-5E ACM campaign by Maple Flag.

DCS World
MP. Repairing client no longer causes crash. Fixed an occasional crash that could occur when restarting mission. Other stability improvements.
AIM-7M. DLZ of AIs corrected.
Fix of lift ground effect under objects.
AI fighters will attack helicopters with the close range AA missiles.
Fixed an older issue where AI vehicles are unable to find a road if the first on road waypoint isn't placed on a road.
Invalid number of chaff/flares in rearming menu fixed.
BetAB-500ShP. Corrected a rocket motor flame position.
S-24 rocket. Corrected a rocket motor flame volume.
ME. Advanced actions - perform command - transmit message locale bug is fixed.
Encyclopedia. Some updates and bugfixes.
The midair crashes (feel like invisible obstacles) of aircraft near Nellis fixed.

DCS C-101 by AvioDev
Fixed auto startup sequence. No more BLOC.CAB announcement after autostart.
Fixed main wheels coordinates, wheel smoke will be shown correctly now.
Fixed helmet visor texture (removed banding).

DCS M-2000C by RAZBAM
POL mode bug fixed. Now all weapons safetied when in POL mode.
D2M keybinds fixed.
Minor changes to FM.

DCS Flaming Cliffs
Bomb-fall line on russian aircraft HUD will not be flashing.
Su-27. Corrected wheel brakes. Added new command for brakes - LShift+W.

DCS Combined Arms
Tunguska (SA-19). The auto-sighting when stabilization is on corrected.

DCS Mi-8MTV2
Camera shake cockpit feature were added
6 basic checklists were added in the voice-over mode of the AI crew and with the waiting of the user's actions (RU locale only a while).
R-828 sound commutation fixed in according with SPU rotary switch.
SPU - max volume at hot start.
DC rotary switch in BATT BUS position by default at hot start.

Sadly, some critical issues still not fixed because we can't reproduce them and find a reason. However, we still working on it and hope to resolve these issues ASAP.
Known issues:
M-2000C: Significant performance drop with enabled mirrors when canopy is opened or jettisoned.
MiG-21bis: Significant performance drop when other aircraft placed nearby.
L-39 engine stops right after entering the mission.
L-39 starts perpendicular to RWY.
A-10C Crash when battery switch is used from cold start.
F-15C control axis don't work.
Bf-109, Spitfire - some gauges don't work.
F-5 Freezes DCS completely, CTD, regardless if in the air or ground.
DCS сrashes when Shilka hits a FC3 plane.

The LoD, mesh and texture problems are still there and seems like ED still not saying a single word about them...

"F-5 Freezes DCS completely, CTD, regardless if in the air or ground."
And at the same time releasing a new campaign for the F-5 in Nevada.

Nice idea watermanpc!

Just don't be surprised if things get "critical".

It won't be long berfore some people here because they can't handle truth and logic.

"DCS C-101 by AvioDev
Fixed auto startup sequence. No more BLOC.CAB announcement after autostart.
Fixed main wheels coordinates, wheel smoke will be shown correctly now.
Fixed helmet visor texture (removed banding)."
I'm so glad I bought this module when all that was wrong with it was the helmet textures, smoke positioning and the auto startup sequence. I'm so glad they're working so hard on my purchase.

Priorities. Like Normandy over 2.5.
How many people are waiting for Normandy? As opposed to those waiting for 2.5?

F-5 works for me both off and online. I actually joined a server(which I never normally do . Offline only usually must be 15 years since I played online) and managed to start the F-5 and take off. It's a strange one.
But I agree promoting an F-5 campaign when there a re obviously some issues with it does seem a bit strange.

But the again

THIS IS DCS !!!!!!!! (Said in a Gerard Butler kind of voice )

SD

It does say "we can't reproduce them" which means it's not all users experiencing these given problems.
I don't know how many people are seeing them.

I mean, "F-15C control axis don't work." and "A-10C Crash when battery switch is used from cold start" seem like things that a LOT of people would be complaining about if it was widespread.



The Jedi Master

Irrelevant. We all know how ED picks which bugs they want to tackle and which ones they've chosen to ignore --- and we all know that the ability to reproduce a bug isn't the criteria for working on it

Is that a royal 'we' or do you have a mouse in your pocket?

Do you have a counterpoint or is word nitpicking the best you can do?

I think his point is quite valid.

How so?

Your post did not really represent opinions from all over the spectrum that make up this forum.

I think suffice to say it represents enough opinions to be valid. Now about that counterpoint.... was there one?

Yeah!, I know ...but even then, it would be great to be able to freely discuss about updates in a REAL way, not as in other forums where the only things you will find about new updates are "selectively ignored bugs" (God, thats a really accurate way of describing it Ice ) in the bugs sub forums and/or just people congratulating because its the "day for updates", even if the update is just a pile of crap or there is no update at all ... meanwhile here, we can discuss how they decided that fixing things like "Encyclopedia. Some updates and bugfixes" was a priority over the utterly broken (for 5/6 months) 2.0 version which hasnt even been acknowledged by devs (f**k logic!!).

When you say we, you should qualify who you mean by that. You obviously don't speak for the forum, however at this point it is impossible to know even who you *think* you speak for.

I'm sorry but if I have to explain to you who or what "we" means, well, I don't have the time, patience, or the crayons for what you want me to do.

Feel free to replace "we" with "I" if it bothers you that much, then I invite you to tackle the remainder of the post, the actual CONTENT of the post. Try to stop focusing on that one word if it confuses you that much and move on. Otherwise, good luck with your strawman argument.

No you don't know how ED decides anything. You might profess to know, but you don't. You may think that reproducing a bug has nothing to do with fixing it, but you would be wrong since knowing the cause of a bug is actually quite important with regard to fixing it.

There, I ignored your poor command of the language and addressed the points that you attempted, badly, to make.

Wow... took you two days to come up with that? My "command of the language" (a 2nd language at that!... or maybe fourth... do different dialects count??) must be really, really poor then. Please cite where else I've gone wrong other than your strawman "we" nitpick, that I may learn the language even better.

As for your counterpoint, again, do I have to draw you a picture for you to understand it? There are bugs in this sim that are easily reproduced and have been around for YEARS... therefore, the ability to reproduce a bug is not the criteria for working on a fix for the said bug. I've never said "reproducing a bug has nothing to do with fixing it"... nice try for another strawman argument though.

Let's now see how long it takes you this time. No pressure.

Oh c'mon guys, stop bickering about small stuff and get back OT.

I, for one, am extremely pleased to see this important step forward: "Encyclopedia. Some updates and bugfixes"
Those pesky encyclopedia typos really ruined my DCS experience, and I am glad they employed resources on fixing them.

Hahaha!! True, bkthunder! That really did need fixing, didn't it? Was it a "poor command of the language" as well?
I guess I'm glad they fixed that too. We can wait for 2.5, after all, can't we?

Don't act surprised if it takes people some time to find the nerves to write something in response to your hostile posting style. It's not the weight of your arguments that makes the experience strenuous.

Neither myself nor cichlidfan are the ones who are in charge of DCS production, we don't have any of your money, we don't put bugs into DCS, we don't decide what features get made or not, so either find in yourself the decency to tone your hostility down or GTFO claiming the argumentative high ground because people don't live on this board for you to get your posts answered in 2 minutes. You're being obnoxious, simple as that.

nevermind

Honestly i kind understand why getting a little more pissed off with customers than developers. Developers can hide behind many real or fake excuses related to revenues or development complexity but what about customers? A customer instead has no excuse to hide, they should not defend any company for any reason but rather just act according what they do and offer at given moment, forgetting glorious past or a fictional future and always remembering any outrageous past experience just to make sure it never happens again. However, it is quite visible the fact that what they do is become a fanboy and defend the company up to the point to deny the reality, Don't take it as a personal attack, actually it is not even only related to DCS but to marketing in overall gaming or not.

If you're talking about me, i'd very much like to see where i denied the existence of shortcomings in DCS.

I'm absolutely not referring directly to anyone

Awww please. Let's not use **THAT** as an excuse, especially when the other side is the one starting it!


Where did I (or anyone else) say any of those??



Hostility? Pfft!! If that's your definition of hostile, well, you'd need much, much thicker skin to be on the interwebs. As for being obnoxious, that's quite rich coming from someone who decides to totally ignore the POINT of the written post and start nitpicking at verbiage and resorting to personal attacks at the POSTER. Please turn down the hypocrisy a bit.

As for getting posts answered in 2 minutes... if cichlidfan had a counterpoint, he'd have made it then and there.... but he didn't and when he did reply, he chose to build a strawman and knock it down, then tried to insult my grasp of the english language. I get accused of hostility but not him? Why don't you either find in yourself the decency to be honest or GTFO?



I'd very much like to see where you acknowledged the existence of shortcomings in DCS. I took a look at your posts for this year and couldn't find any, maybe you know of a better example from further back and would care to present that as evidence.

Not being a fundamentalist =/= not acknowledging shortcomings

But unfortunately, your [edited] isn't able to process that.

See ya in a couple weeks

Thanks for re-opening the thread Force 10

Suggestion

When someone acts like a bellend , why not give them a 24hr holiday instead of locking the thread ?

No real updates this week for 1.5.6 , which is sad because there is still the server falls over more often than a 1 legged man in an arse kicking contest
ED did one nights testing and gathered data on what was wrong but have yet to put a patch out to fix it, thats pretty poop

In other news yet again they are trying bundle deals to get us to buy the F5 campaign ......

I managed to read this post before the edit and all I can say is... you have to do better than that!

People should really stop building up these strawmen and learn to discuss/argue properly. Where did I say Sobek (or anyone) is "fundamentalist"? It's even more hilarious when you consider the insult that followed!! Hahahaha....

Really guys, you'll get more respect if how to discuss/argue, if you know how to present your side, if you know how to defend your points. I know we may not agree on everything, I know different people have different preferences, but that's all put aside when we're discussing FACTS. Whether you like ED or not, there are FACTS about this dev company that just cannot be denied. Missed deadlines. Selective bug squashing. Questionable priorities. Trigger-happy with the ban hammer. And so on. These items are separate from the subjective qualities of DCS such as value-for-money or fun factor. A new guy just buying the A-10C module with no previous experience with DCS **WILL** get good value-for-money and **WILL** have so much fun. The critical simmer who has followed ED/DCS for years and have most of their modules will not have the same experience... unless his preferences completely align with ED's business model and practices.... but even then, the value-for-money aspect can start to come to question. For example, the new guy got a map and an airframe for $40 while the critical simmer only really gets an airframe for $40-60, so the value-for-money can be argued to be going down the more modules you buy.




+1!



Indeed! And I'm glad Force10 seems to be going in this direction, although it seems like it's weeks instead of just a day or two. Ouch!



They can really only bundle Nevada so many times...

Thanks for not closing the thread!!

Sadly, another week of NOTHING!!...it looks like this is going to be the tonic for the next 2 or 3 months...and even then, 2.5 will be EONS away, in fact I highly doubt we will see 2.5 this year so not looking good for DCS at all.

+1! I think they've closed enough threads due to this "problem" that a different solution needs to be found.

I guess the real sad point is that probably by the time 2.5 will be released or really close to be released (obviously alpha version), ED will announce DCS 3.0 and then you will see again bad usage or resource and 2.5 taking years to even reach beta (an extremely bugged beta) and 3.0 will take even further to hit alpha.

I follow Ice's argumentation.
We should concentrate on FACTS and take ED by their word. The Normandy map will release late May
and then they concentrate on the Caucasus merge for 2.5.
Then i expect a period of bug fixes and features like ATC, AI, clouds etc - announced long time ago
and not yet implemented (the dedicated server already got sacked).
Don't get personal, stick to the FACTS - and kick them in the ass if they miss the mark,
just by putting FACTS on the table. All the bla bla bla will get us nowhere - stick to the FACTS.
If in doubt, i give you an example:
https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=184337
I've seen NO comment from the devs ... we should give them credit for the 2.5 merge though,
but after that it is time to deliver. I can't imagine ANY excuse for obvious bugs not getting fixed.
If they argue with SoH and the F/A-18 after the 2.5 merge - they'll better close shop,
because we've been through that before: wait and wait because all will be super duper
in the so bright future - it's the facts that count, not their wishful thinking.

I wouldn't say "Another week of NOTHING", as BigNewy has been posting on ED forum improved binaries for all the planes broken by the last two 2.0.5 patches and so far they've been reported to solve most of glaring issues. So there has been some troubleshooting going on behind the scenes, for core functionality of the sim at last. For those of us, who were in the unfortunate group of guys affected by the "updates", having the planes flyable again is quite SOMETHING I'd say.

I still raise an eyebrow, however, looking at another 2.0.5-related bundle deal being pushed through the shop, when everyone (except new customers!) knows very well that part of the customer base will not be able to use it straight out of the box (the new customers shouldn't have to browse the forum for these fixed binaries anyway, should they?).

I wouldn't necessarily call that 'progress' either.......they're fixing something that is only broken due to their own incompetence and was previously working.

That sounds amazing

I can say that if I flap my arms hard enough I can fly ... it doesn't necessarily make it true

Same with saying we have all these things fixed ........ oh but we haven't released a patch yet with them in it yet

2 statements are similar in that they are both un-verified claims

Game development in overall is a place where you cannot just blindly trust devs . This new era of pre-alpha/alpha sales and kickstart projects (both dcs and non dcs games) taught me to not buy any game based purely on what it can become because it is purely hypothetical and hardly get translated into reality. Some developers will get your money and run, others will get lost in their messy development and some will do both (as soon as they realize that they are failing to delivery what has been promised they just quit and start a new project).
That said any optimism on DCS is gone by at least 4 years. A few FACTS:

- A-10C took years to hit gold!
- Nevada is being developed by what ? 5 years? and still has not even reached beta (i'm talking about real beta and not alpha disguised as beta).
- Amazing use of resources (sarcasms here), develop 3 version at the same time of which 2 will become obsolete....that's what i call optimization.
- Wonderful development background history (again sarcasm here), each update they release will fix a minor bug, ignore major bugs and introduce new minor and major bugs.
- Promised features that has never been delivered for one reason or another.
- Very long list of bugs, some really old and crucial to the nature of the game itself like air missiles weapons.

I have already said the same what you said, as soon they finish X they will have to start to delivery Y but what happened was once developing X they announced Z which postponed Y and Q (that was promised with Z).

I've skipped LOMAC because i never liked it, then i bought A-10C and BS2 just to try something else over falcon (which is still by far the best out there for me). I got really excited because although they had A LOT OF FLAWS, i saw a potential and i thought "jesus, they can only get better".....oh boy i was simply wrong! I also said to others to be patient because they have to iron out a few things but sure it will get better in short/medium term. Not only they did not improved but also did a few step back (both A-10 and BS standalone was a better finished product at that time than DCS world today).

Furthermore, i have to say.....i gave it a try, and yes really nice flight dynamics but this is it? Damn it i'm looking for a combat simulator not a training simulator. If i have to fly for the pure joy of doing virtual flights then well I would rather stick to X-Plane which simulates the overall flight experience 1000 times better. As you can see my conclusion is that DCS is neither a valid combat game/simulator nor a valid flight game/simulator, it takes no position but just sit there in the middle. Now if you add their development background reputation, the new idea on how milk customers (WW2 AI which shows where they are heading to) and for last but not least they PR background reputation.................it leads me to the conclusion that it just not worth and don't even deserve a penny!!!!

I've got something more amazing... how about "updates" not breaking things? How about "updates" not messing with the core of the sim, namely planes that can do what they're supposed to do which is fly? Fixing something that wasn't broken in the first place isn't really anything to brag about, in fact, if it were me, I'd be ashamed of having to fix something that didn't need fixing before the "updates."



What else were they working on when they were doing DCS A-10C or even DCS BS2? I would bet they weren't doing anything else. Compare that to now where they're spread across so many projects.... managing 3rd party aircraft and campaigns, making a new map, juggling 3 dev branches...



And some people here questioned my use of the term "we."



Potential is only great if you can tap it. You could be sitting on top of the biggest store of oil, bigger than what the Middle East could ever dream of, but if you have no way to tap it, it might as well not be there in the first place. In ED's case, not only are they not tapping this resource/potential, they're messing about with other alternatives and branching out every which way. As a "shareholder," this is very frustrating to watch and after 6-7 years, it start to beg the question of the competence of the people in the company.



Indeed, it's more of an airframe simulator. There is a bit of combat but it's so scripted that it's only really useful for training. A good "combat" environment can be scripted and be scripted well enough to hide the fact that it's scripted, but God bless whoever is doing all that work and I hope he's getting good money for his efforts!



Oh, and I dunno... you've got this slight, slight, very, very tiny eetsy bitsy miniscule advantage of flying over ANYWHERE ON EARTH.

DCS 2.0.5.3521 Update 3

DCS World
Fixed issue of SF protection that caused of random malfunctions in the game:
- L-39 engine stops right after entering the mission.
- L-39 starts perpendicular to RWY.
- Bf-109 Gauges don't work, engine stop (out of fuel).
- Mirage 2000C no way to go to afterburner, even with the throttle full open. It stops at 84 instead of over 240 fuel flow. After about 30 seconds in the air, it trims uncontrollably up, like the Viggen, but much worse.
- A-10C Crash when battery switch is used from cold.
- F-5 Freezes completely DCS, CTD, regardless if in the air or ground.
- Spitfire Fuel on 0%, engine stops after a few seconds.
- Spitfire lots of cockpit animation don't work.
- F-15C control axis don't work.
Fixed crash caused by damage certain elements of A-10A.
Helipad icon on F10 view will change color after capturing by other coalition.
Change customized cockpit will take effect without restarting DCS.
Incorrect parking place in some QS missions on second launch fixed.
AI helicopters will have a clouds of dust effect near ground surface.

DCS C-101 by AvioDev
Added missing C-101 EB/CC default skin to several countries in ME. Added Chile, Honduras, Jordan and USAF Aggressor skins to their respective countries in ME.

DCS M-2000 by RAZBAM
Fixed issue that caused a huge FPS drop with enabled mirrors and opened canopy.

Damn still no 1.5.6 patch that fixes the constantly crashing when trying to host a server ................

Todays patch for 1.5:

DCS 1.5.6.3690 Update 1

DCS World
Restored autobriefing info in simulation.
External views and F5 view will be allowed for 'Game Master'.
AI planes will able to perform high G turns in the aerobatics tasks.
LOD of Oliver Perry corrected.
Start of ATGM Vikhr will produce warning on A-10C MWS.
MP. Kuznetsov carrier. Clients will not spawn in one place.
Scripts. Game crash when player issues command Group.destroy() to their own group fixed.
Crash when civilian traffic died fixed.
Gunpads sound will heard for all aircraft.
BetAB-500ShP booster fire effect corrected.
S-24 rocket. Corrected a rocket motor flame volume.
AIM-7M. DLZ calculation corrected.
AI fighters will be able to attack a low IR signature helicopters with short-range AA missiles.
Flight model. Eliminated of parasitic lift ground effect appears in flight under objects.
Invalid number of chaff/flares in rearming menu fixed.
ME. Voice Over in the triggered action can be localized now.
Helipad icon on F10 view will change color after capturing by other coalition.
AI helicopters will have a clouds of dust effect near ground surface.
MP. Repairing client no longer causes crash. Fixed an occasional crash that could occur when restarting mission. Other stability improvements.

DCS C-101 by AvioDev
New item not present in latest 2.0.5 version:
Added missing C-101 EB/CC default skin to several countries in ME. Added Chile, Honduras, Jordan and USAF Aggressor skins to their respective countries in ME.
Items already present in latest 2.0.5 version:
Fixed collision model to improve FPS, especially when flying close to some objects.
Improved flaps external model.
Fixed auto startup sequence. No more BLOC.CAB announcement after autostart.
Fixed main wheels coordinates, wheel smoke will be shown correctly now.
Fixed helmet visor texture (removed banding).

DCS FC 3
Bomb-fall line on Russian aircraft HUDs will not flashing.
Su-27. Corrected wheel brakes. Added new command for brakes - LShift+W.

DCS Ka-50
FPS drops by half when NAV mode of ABRIS enabled with Water - Low option fixed.

DCS A-10C
A turn coordination with SAS enabled corrected.
Training. A-10C-Training-Navigation.miz - TACAN triggers corrected

DCS AJS 37 by Heatblur Simulations
Changed height definition (parking space size)
Added weapon chart to /Docs/
Fix for series-launch after re-arm
Updated warheads for rockets
Implemented MP Friendly BK90
Added localization support for hints and inputs
Fixed some tooltip popups
Added customized cockpit support (EN Cockpit incoming!)
Added localization PO files
Added CN hint and encyclopedia localization
Added RU localization of payloads/failures/mission names
Corrected RB 15 missing its' target
Corrected silent RWR
Corrected RB-04 and RB-15 for the AI
Fixed CTD when entering a mission with a carrier and other ships in the same group
Improved structural damage
Added Over-G sounds
Added basic force feedback implementation
Added key commands for stick
Rebuilt AFK landing mode
Possibly fixed RB-04 and RB-15 rearm issues
Fixed some keyboard flight control commands
Fixed FORMLJUS shining on wing instead of vertical tailplane
Fixed gap in front panel in external view
Fixed pylons poking through interior of intake
Fixed see through behind FLI ball
Re-fixed E-W on FLI ball
Re-fixed gap in front canopy rim
Optimized various cockpit parts
Fixed TILS light staying on after landing
AKAN gunpod sounds added (ED)
Various misc texture fixes
Flaps now retract over 8+ seconds, easing lift loss after takeoff
Refactored high alpha warning system
fixed ground collision warning staying on after power off
Fixed RB-XX name format
Corrected small icon
Fixed missing ‘4’ on Altitude Gauge

DCS MiG-21Bis by Leatherneck Simulations
Adjusted suspension dampers.
Adjusted axis roll at slow speeds.
Adjusted low speed drag in landing configuration.
Adjusted acceleration in climb and turning.
Fixed unusual event when AOA stalls, caused aircraft to enter uncontrollable roll.
Fixed RSBN, PRMG, SAU automatic landing modes, causing unwanted oscillations.
Fixed default chaff and flare quantities for ASO-2 configuration.
Fixed the armament selection switch’s logic.
Adjusted IR missiles’ detection range.
Fixed radar ground reflections’ algorithm while flying inverted.
Added landing/taxi lights 3 position commands.
ВДИ-30К altimeter now calibrated for International Standard Atmosphere
Fixed RSBN distance indicator changing from 019 to 020.
UPK-23-250 control box now shows.
Corrected “Main Red Lights” rotation animation.
Corrected ADI/HSI’s light illumination sequence.
Adjusted afterburner animation and sound synchronization.

DCS L-39
Fixed errors in artificial horizon behaviour without power.
The wing hardpoints will be numbered correctly.
L-39 QS and Training missions updated.

DCS Combined Arms
SAM radar indicator will not disappear after switching Driver/Gunner/Radar positions. Driver/Gunner/Radar key commands changed.
Fixed DCS crash when player leaves ground unit with turned ON radar view.
Aiming of Tunguska (SA-19) with stabilization switch-on corrected.

DCS Spitfire IX
Update of EN Spitfire flight manual.

You missed best part :

Known issue
Significant performance drop with enabled civilian traffic.


Its awesome how low quality their patches are :/

Buy hey 2.5 will come and save us ....make dcs great again!

It's an annoyance. "New patch!" Run the updater "Your version is up to date." Oh, this patch was for Beta branch.

Yes, been trying to update and asking fellow flyers if they can find it.
Bollocks.

One would think that part should've been bold too, but who am I to complain.
(all ED Spies, did you see that? I complained about something ED related! run back home to mommy and tell!)

it wasnt there when I posted the message, so I guess they didnt even knew that when releasing the patch but realized the issue a few MINUTES after... also ground shadowing is still broken and they didnt even said a word about it... 2.5 better be the second Jesus Christ advent.

And don't forget to deactivate your MiG21 before applying the patch! I missed this part in the forum and now have to revert back to the previous version. Delete the reg entries, DL again the new patch and activate the Mig21 again.

Check your warning level. Should've gone up a few percentage points! If not, do better next time.



I hope 2.5 is worth the wait...



Remember --- you paid for this module too!



I'm sorry... there's a "beta" branch for 1.5... and there's a "release" branch for 1.5??

Well the multiplayer hosting stability is still utter dog sh1te , server still keeps falling over

much crap patch

Such crappy coding


WOW

I have just been kicked off for no reason...niiiiiiiceee!

Kicked off as in ban hammered?

C'mon, patches have been always released for 1.x.x Beta branch first since the beginning of DCS (with a handful of exceptions last year when both branches got it on the same day), don't act as if You didn't know that.

For dedicated single players like me it brought quite a few important and long awaited fixes (especially for Viggen and the MiG-21, which is back to playable state now), so I consider it to be one of the best patches recently. Not so for multiplayer side it seems, however, so I'm not surprised some of You are miffed. The biggest eFF-up I see is not putting any warning in release notes about DRM overhaul procedure for MiG-21 owners. I was lucky enough to read relevant instruction in M3 section of the forum on Wednesday, so I prepared beforehand, but there are many who didn't and have to struggle now with the registry fixes and whatnot for the MiG.

One step forwards and two steps back. I'm not convinced just getting a module back to a playable state is 'progress' nor anything to be that thankful about. I'd much rather ED sorted this shoddy mess out.

Not a single bit of news regarding the progress of 2.5! Wasn't it supposed to be the next priority that followed the Spit and Normandy?....and with Normandy apparently close to release there must be someone working on 2.5.

Sorry but I dont understand what you mean (not english native so)...I meant kicked from a multiplayer sesion answering to the previous post...

I don't know what you are smoking. The Beta branch hasn't existed for all of DCS. In fact it is a relatively recent invention. DCS launch 2008. Beta branch didn't exist until December 2015. You have a funny idea of when "always" is for 1.5 years out of a 9 year history. When a patch is released in the test build used by only testers and enthusiasts it isn't "out." A patch is out for DCS when it is out for the actual final product line. I have three shortcuts to update the three branches. If someone says "a DCS patch is out" they should say it in a way that I know which to check. "Hey, new patch out for DCS Main." "Hey, new patch out for DCS OB." "Hey, new patch out for DCS OA." There's no excuse for being a bad communicator. Stop being a bad communicator.

Also "You" isn't a proper noun and doesn't get capitalized. Learn to speak English or stop posting.

You've got it backward. There is not a branch for a version; there is a version for a branch. The branch is the object and it has the quality of a certain version number. Just like you wouldn't say "Green paint has the new 2018 BMW" you don't say "Version X.X has a DCS branch."

Dude, that's over the top, even for the Grammar Police.

Agreed.

Frederf, there's no reason to go there...not everyone has English as there native language, and it's not a requirement to have an opinion.

Tone it down.

I meant being banned from the forums, aka being hit by the "ban hammer".... but obviously you meant something else!



Looks like Frederf is having a bad day Or he's just had enough.



I may be using the terms wrong... So DCS Main is 1.5.X, DCS Open Beta is 2.0.X, what is DCS Open Alpha?

In that case I got kicked in both ways! ...sorry for my bad english!

So kicked from MP **AND** banned from the forums? Harsh!

A few notes for Frederf:
a) Sorry, I admit the "beginning of DCS" was wrong, as I didn't play it back in '08. I started in '13, but the OB branch was already there (just checked 1.2.6 - December '13), so you're not quite correct either, are you? Besides, the point still stands, they never release a patch for stable first.
b) branch version of the patch was written literally in the second line of release notes, how more clear can the notes be?;
c) in my language capitalizing all pronouns is used and required by relevant grammar rule to indicate respect for recipient of the message, even in informal writing. I used it out of habit, but if it shouldn't be used in English (could some native speaker confirm?), I'll gladly adapt - starting with this very post.

That being said, I'll still take the liberty of posting in these forums every now and then (as well as I can), despite obviously being a dirty, non-native, illiterate peasant, not worthy of this mighty privilege .

@Ice - it's two branches for 1.5.xx - stable and Open Beta (installed and patched separately, though sometimes they're the same when one "catches up" with another), plus one 2.0.xx Open Alpha. Three total.

Quite a sweeping statement you did... for something you just started 3-4 years ago. I've probably stopped playing DCS for longer than you HAVE played DCS.



So "you" is normal but "You" denotes respect? Interesting. Anyway, don't mind Frederf's comment there. That's going a bit too far in the grammar nazi department and like I said, He may just be having a bad day. Personally, as long as you can use your/you're and their/they're/there properly, You're good



So they're working on 1.5X stable, open beta, 2.0.x open alpha, and 2.5? Ugh! Though I am guessing 1.5.x Open Beta is just testing for what is later released to the 1.5.x Stable? But still....

DCS WORLD, Did Not Launch Out of "Beta" Until November 2012 w/ DCS World 1.2.2,
Prior to That DCS World 1.1.2.1, 1.2.0 and 1.2.1 Were Labeled as "BETA" Versions of DCS World (Integrating A-10C, P-51D and Ka-50

DCS World Open Beta Branch Launched w/ Version 1.2.7 ON DECEMBER 18th 2013.

The Updates Clearly State what Branches are getting them In this Case the March 31st Update Says: "To Open Beta at first."

It is a bit confusing. Open Beta is the public testing build and Release is the stable build of the standard Caucasus lineage of code. The releases "inchworm" such that the OB experiments with fixes and features and if proven stable the Release branch is patched to that version (or with a handful of simple fixes caught in the OB exposure) to catch up to the testing build. For the history of the two DCS branches both have been 1.X with the OB being either slightly newer code than Release or them being the same. Open Alpha is DCS NTTR which has yet to be integrated with the other half and has been 2.X. Open Alpha's version number is misleading because development improvements are being applied to both lineages despite on two separate version numbering scales.

Maybe it's more helpful to realize that there are thousands of versions of the DCS code and only a few of those "snapshots in time" are released in the vehicle of the particular branch. The code development is so fine grain as to almost be a continuum. The branches are labeled containers for code. A branch... how is the best way to phrase it.. is elevated to? achieves? a version of the code.



Yeah I looked up when the Beta Branch program (by looking up when the first post in the DCS OB forum was) began and I got the date really wrong. Why is there a post from 2008 in a topic that's 5 years newer? Of course I meant the test build program and not the original pre-gold DCS. The testing branch OA program came out when NTTR "came out" (which still hasn't come out in my opinion) and the OB program came out soon after. It's not you particularly; you just won the prize being the 10,000th person to not distinguish between the versions when saying a patch is out. I've wasted many a click 9,999 times before when someone unhelpfully said "patch out" and I had to try 2 or 3 times. You just were the 10,000th customer on that one. If it wasn't you it'd be the next person to twitch my brow. I also resent the DCS community for treating experimental builds as full releases for the purposes of praise but using their unofficial nature to deflect criticism. I also didn't check your nationality. Many of the poor English users come from the USA. Bad English is actually more likely to come out of Florida than Poland I find. I'm quite understanding if it's not your language and I didn't know that about capitalizing pronouns. I just was grated by the irony of being corrected incorrectly. Irony of ironies my correcting of your correcting of my correcting had an error. Such is Karmic life.

The OA and OB updates are also largely independent so it's a coin toss which version is meant by "patch out, yo." As for OB and Release I don't keep mental track if OB is ahead of Release (in which case the next natural patch is probably but not surely for Release) or if OB and Release are the same (OB is probably the next product line patched). I'm just tired of people not saying and grumpy.

So it states but since it is in small print between two bold-texted captions it is very easy to miss and I would not call it "Clearly".

It was posted in a thread where I get my updates since I only run release version 1.5 and the first line, in bold, is "DCS 1.5.6.3690 Update 1" and from there I scan other blocks down to AJS Viggen since I have close to zero interest in the others.

Since ED do not trust their beta testers but instead use this open beta approach I would personally very much appreciate if they used a seperate thread for open beta releases, since as beta they really are not a release.

I totally agree with Frederf (but sure, he has had some bad days lately but in all honesty he usually post very knowledgeable insights from time to time - when not nitpicking word-use from us non-native speakers)

Actually, what I think we're starting to see is DCS:Frustration and it develops way faster than any other module


Edit (yes, I do laugh at my own jokes so people calling me weird might have a point)

ZZZzzzzzz... huh?! Sorry! Dozed off there
Thanks for the explanation... but this only made me scratch my head more and more. Why keep on developing 1.X.X when they fully know 2.5 will wipe out all efforts on that front? Why not get 1.X.X stable and decently working, then go all-hands-on-deck on 2.5? Does that make **TOO MUCH** sense?



Wow, that hit the nail right on the head...



Quite funny actually!



ED have beta testers?? I mean, actual, PAID beta testers? I just thought they'd release it to the community and see what chaos ensues afterwards...



Make sure you patch that module properly otherswise you may not be Frustrating in the right manner.

And if you do get frustrated in the incorrect manner or format....do not report back as such using the official message board because you know which hammer you'll be hit with!!

Yep, got my first 1-month "forced vacation" from ED forums today for taking a dig at ED, which was somewhat too spicy vocabulary-wise and pushed me above certain warning treshold, which warrants "vacation". I won't go into details to avoid extending the "vacation" even further . Though the dig, referring to certain shortcomings of current DCS compared to FSX/P3D/XP11, plus messy situation with multiple versions developed together, was justified in itself I'd say. On the other hand, today I also picked up and tested a new set of MFG Crosswinds (my very first rudder pedals, yay), so it's been a bittersweet, crazy day so far.

@ Ice - don't worry, your/you're/their/there/they're phenomena is a pet peeve of mine as well, simply because when used incorrectly, they make a sentence more difficult to read and understand for a non-native speaker. I always make sure to get these right!

^
You Were given a 30 day Vacation for Reaching 40%

Rarely are Users Banned or Temp Banned over One Post, most of the time it's the Accumulation of infractions that push warning % above a specific limit that constitutes the vacation,

In Your Case your Last Post earned 10% for 1.10 Violation and that put you at the 40% Threshold,

Your Base is at 30% from 2014, Dunno what that was for off hand (but will check), But that basically keeps it to where every 10% Warning given you hit the 40% Threshold and go on another 30 day vacay w/ the 10% warning expiring in 30, 60 or 90 days depending on infraction type.


The Wording was very much indeed spicy, and outside of degrading items in comparison to other sims, had zero constructive feedback.

If only ED had put as much planning and thought into their overall road map as they have in their ban system...there may not be a need for a ban system at all.

Art-J banned for one month? Pfff... Amateur :P

Din, Din, Dinnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn!!

I am banned for 1 year apparently, after breaking rule 1.13 which, btw, is not even in the list of rules (it jumps from 1.12 to 1.14).
Lol, what a bunch of lunatics.

You very obviously did not put you're thoughts in a mature, constructive-criticism way, and that's why your on a forced vacation. Remember, it's not the content of the post they have issue with, it's the delivery. Learn how to write/post better next time.
(for the obtuse reader, yes, that was sarcasm)


See above!



I really don't understand why Skate seems To be Capitalizing a random Word Here And there, What's that about?

As for these "infractions," these are based on some silly rule that some bullied kid wrote in his bedroom before crying himself to sleep at night; how is that supposed to be enforced and how are the enforcers supposed to be respected? You guys are just digging a deeper and deeper hole with each ban hammer use.... you think you're doing good but really, you're just digging your own gave.


Did it offend many snowflakes over in the ED forums? Can't have that!



1.13 was there before. I know because that's how I got my 40% ban without me even posting in the ED forums, so I had to go and look 1.13 up. To be honest though, it's quite flattering to know that some mod has to follow me around to see if I misbehave or post something naughty...

So 40% equates to 1 month? Gee, overzealous much?

That was like that time OJ got 20 years for crossing over 60%. Oh wait, that's right, percentages for behavior make absolutely no sense so no one uses that.



The Jedi Master

OSD, Obsessive Shift-Button Disorder.



The Rules are fine, as stated millions of times, ED Forums are Company Owned and managed, and therefore have significantly tighter rules when it comes to conduct and criticism.



No, it was just not constructive, and not needed, the topic was asking how to promote DCS, not asking for what was wrong with it compared to FSX, XP12, WarThunder etc.




Oo, Nice Come back...

Force 1, Skate 0.

Skate, I figured my post wasn't worth many points in itself and just bumped my old infraction count above the treshold, so - fair enough, whether the "vacation" is handed manually by a mod, or automatically by some script - it is what it is, there won't be any drama-queen frenzy from me. The reaction was "oh well, see you next month then".

In the hindsight, I could've worded it different, but still, commenting on the topic, one cannot promote a product to potential customers outside when:
a) it's right in the middle of a rather shaky & painful overhaul - managing three branches, each with unique bugs and updates, a situation which might be borderline acceptable for patient veterans, but not really for newcomers (current DRM-related storm on the MiG-21 part of the forum is a fine example);
b) still falls behind civilian sims in some aspects (for example ATC), which are considered key features by these potential customers - they just won't accept DCS until this quality distance is at least narrowed down.

Any promoting of DCS when the above issues are not taken care of might have the opposite effect (interpreted as a sneaky attempt to sell a half-finished stuff). Promoting when 2.5 is out, hopefully with improved ATC, clouds etc, when the dust settles somewhat? Sure, why not. Doing it now? Bad idea in my opinion. My infamous post was quite on-topic then, I'd say. Maybe not directly, but these are aspects which cannot be skipped over.

I haven't read the thread but in the "F/A-18C news" thread in this very forum Skate is quite happy to point out the benefits of DCS over FSX/P3D. He's quite happy to compare both sims when the advantage is DCSs. Any criticism or even unfavorable comparison will warrant a violation of the ED forum rules. It's censorship and propaganda. cherry picked facts and unbalanced information.

FSX has its Superior Points.

As I said though, here on SimHQ, theres a different set of rules, you can compare, gripe, whatever.

I dont compare FSX to dCS or P3D on the Company forums.

Putting above controversies aside, I'll blatantly and shamelessly go off topic for a second on SimHQ forums this time and say these MFG Crosswinds are damn freakin' awesome . After cranking curvature to 20% I've just managed to takeoff and land DCS Spit a couple of times in a row without making a scratch on it, and that's after about two hours of using the device. Not having any previous experiences with proper rudder pedals whatsoever, I feared converting from racing wheel ones would be longer and much more troublesome. And yet, it's not. Lovely piece of hardware, what the hell took me so long to buy it?

Which pedals are these now? I've been using the ones that came with my G940 for years now, and while they're adequate they're just barely.

The stick itself has become horrible to hold as that rubberized plastic has become flypaper. I've had to cover it with that tape you use for bandages so I can put my hand on it without sticking to it.



The Jedi Master

MFG Crosswind pedals. Not cheap but worth every penny.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJJ9PukSq80

Oh yes, I remember hearing of these now.

A little bit high end for my tastes, roughly $330 US incl shipping...maybe for my b-day.





The Jedi Master

Those Pedals are a must have for the serious WWII pilots.

So why does ED think it can police a person's behavior ON A DIFFERENT FORUM SITE and use that as basis for punishment on the ED site?

Let's not even go into the areas of "conduct and criticism" becase it's blatantly obvious what a farce that is.



Yes... if it's pro-DCS, then it's fine. If it puts DCS in a bad light, the it isn't really "constructive."

Sounds like communist Russia....oh wait

Yes, that is indefensible. You can make your rules stringent on your site to rule their behavior there, but to ban when they did nothing wrong there but elsewhere smacks of cyberstalking.

Imagine getting banned from Target because you were loud and drunk at Walmart. It moves from ensuring acceptable behavior on your site to screening participants based on a profile you create of them searching the web for what they've done elsewhere.

The REALLY sad part is mods aren't getting paid to do this. WTF is wrong with a person that volunteers to keep track of the activities of people on other sites? Serious mental issues.



The Jedi Master

From what I understand, this is a catch-all rule in cases of extreme trolling or misinformation, e.g. "Watt Magner does lascivious things to underage farm animals." Such posts should not require policing of other forums because word would get out.

A parallel would be if somebody went on MSNBC and made a statement, why shouldn't that person have to defend the statement when they appear on Fox News the following week? The ED forums are privately owned and they can do what they want. What is up for debate is not the existence of the rule, but whether it is being abused beyond its stated purpose.

I've never looked at it like that before, but yes - you're absolutely right.

Is that non-constructive criticism I see there?

I would say YES!!!

Another pitiful update comes to 2.0...looks like definitely they wont fix a single thing until they end Normandy/Caucasus/2.5 or whatever the next endless thing they are going to "do" (and probably not even then), "enjoy"...


DCS 2.0.5.3889 Update 4


DCS World
Fixed GUI Error when using the condition for the task

DCS FC3
F-15C. Fixed performance drop issue related to control axis moving in some cases.

DCS MiG-21Bis by Leatherneck Simulations

Important: This update contains the MiG-21Bis StarForce patch.
Before applying this update, please visit ED forum thread for detailed information:
(English) https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php...85&postcount=1
(Russian) https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=185643
Adjusted flaps’ drag coefficients.
Adjusted axis roll at slow speeds.
Adjusted pitch, roll, and yaw stability.
Adjusted acceleration in climb and turning.
Fixed unusual event when AOA stalls, caused aircraft to enter uncontrollable roll.
Fixed RSBN, PRMG, SAU automatic landing modes, causing unwanted oscillation.
Fixed default chaff and flare quantities for ASO-2 configuration.
Fixed the armament selection switch’s logic.
Adjusted IR missiles’ detection range.
Fixed radar ground reflections’ algorithm while flying inverted.
ВДИ-30К altimeter now calibrated for International Standard Atmosphere
Fixed RSBN distance indicator changing from XX9 to X2X.
UPK-23-250 control box now shows.
Corrected “Main Red Lights” rotation animation.
Corrected ADI/HSI’s light illumination sequence.
Adjusted afterburner animation and sound synchronization.
Fixed navigation beacons locations and ordering


And another patch for 1.5:

DCS World
Tree models fixed.
Fixed GUI Error when using the condition for the task.
F-15C. Fixed performance drop issue related to control axis moving in some cases.

DCS MiG-21Bis by Leatherneck Simulations
Important: This update contains the MiG-21Bis StarForce patch.
Before applying this update, please visit ED forum thread for detailed information:
(English) https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php...85&postcount=1
(Russian) https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=185643
Adjusted suspension dampers to be more rigid.
Adjusted flaps’ drag coefficients.
Adjusted pitch, roll, and yaw stability.
Fixed landing/taxi light inputs.

When I see 'gag' rules like that, I say to myself 'what is wrong with the product that such rules are required'?

^It's not a pitiful update for MiG-21 Pilots. Or A-10C Pilots w/ AP Bug, or F-15C Pilots.

I don't have the beta 1.5 branch, I have release but I also have 2.0 branch.

So...this will fix MiG-21 in 2.0 SF-wise but not yet in 1.5.5 release? I need to wait for 1.5.6 for that?



The Jedi Master

So I guess it is for everybody else...It is and has been at least during MONTHS for NTTR users for example.

Both release and open alpha were patched today.

How is it a Bad Update for You?

All three branches are fixed and "synchronized" after today's updates as far as MiG-21 binaries and DRM are concerned (by the way, the stable version number has been also 1.5.6 for quite some time). Follow instructions from the link below and you should be able to patch both your installs without any MiG-21-related issues:
https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3102385&postcount=1

I didnt say its BAD, its pitiful due to the amount of really BIG issues especially NTTR has since months and even more pitiful when the map has been in development for 5+ years (and who knows how much more, are you going to break the record and go for a full decade??? Cheer up!!!)

As painful and interesting as the MiG switching DRM schemes it has been done in the fastest and most friendly way possible. Hopefully the MiG's DRM woes are slain by this 3rd? DRM system attempt.

I just loaded up 2.0 (haven't played it in a while)

Is anyone else getting little stutters every second or so ?

It seem quite regular

No problems here, 2.0 sits in SSD

I3 6100 and16gb DDR4 (8gb wont be smooth, stutters.. so i have 16 and it made miracles )
Gtx 970 4gb + OC rift CV1

= Happy Vr flyer here.

Is a Gtx 970 enough for DCS in VR? (have a 4670K @ 4.3ghz)

I'm about o pull the trigger for VR and if a 970 is ok then it makes the whole enterprise easier.

Nate

Since flicking through the updates being posted....no updates to the hawk?

Yes it is, i run 1.3 Pixeldensity and 2xMsaa and all settings high exept shadows low and it look and runs great.
Your faster CPU will make it run even better. With 1.3PD and 2x msaa i can spot targets easily enough and 99%dials are easy to read and only some times i need to lean in bit or use VR zoom

And i Recomend to go with Oculus CV1 , its just bit better for dcs.

I cant fly with monitors anymore , not my 3 x Fullhd triple screen setup, or not with my single 2560x1440 screen , its just that much better. (And using pit with mouse is easy , i have mouse always near my flight stick and i have zero problems to find it. Its just awesome how easy everything is when compared to my screen / track ir setups. I even sold away my Cougar mfd's and custom button boxes

-Haukka81

DCS 1.5.6.4546.280 Update 2

‘UH-1H Argo’ campaign introduced.

DCS World
Su-33 won’t try to take off with folded wings.
Ambient sound will not disappear after mission restart.
CG-60 Normandy: Restored missing sounds of anti-aircraft artillery.
Reduced Kh-25, Kh-29 warheads power.
Fixed “Hear Like In Helmet” option resets when changing sound volume.
Fixed wrong QFE pressure in briefing.
Multiplayer: Fixed crash on mission restart.
Fixed strange AI maneuvers when a task pushed by trigger.
Fixed bug with some ME tabs continued to be displayed when another window opened.

DCS UH-1H
Fixed inverted CDI Vertical Bar.

DCS L-39
Option “Hide Stick” now works for L-39ZA.
Ailerons force limit by airflow was increased.
Throttle latch in rear cockpit will be opened in multiplayer mode.
Radio control switch fixed - control will be switched between the cockpits with every flip.
RSBN control box lighting fixed.
Fixed bias of minute pointer on stopwatch dial.

DCS Ka-50
Fixed hang of simulation after sending command "Attack datalink targets" to wingman.

DCS A-10C
Fixed progressive roll oscillation in autopilot ALT mode.

DCS C-101 by AvioDev
The main reason for this update is the implementation of new navaids, which are now compatible with any DCS map as well as highly improved. Details below.
Removed rudder trim from C-101EB input options.
Fixed navigation lights in external model which were hanging in midair when wings/tail are detached.
Updated missions according to new smoke system. They can now be launched and edited again.
Mission briefing picture will now appear also when main interface theme is not C-101.
Changes in sounds. WIP.
New VHF NAV (VOR/ILS/MB) implementation. Most of the code redone and made compatible with any DCS map.
Updated RMI and HSI course deviation logic.
Fixed forward and rear ARN-127 (VOR/ILS/MB) control panel indications and functionality.
VHF and MK control knobs made functional in the rear cockpit Intercom Panel.
Working Marker lights in the rear cockpit.
Fixed VOR/MB test functionality.
Working VHF CB in the rear cockpit.
Fixed RMI pointers jump when passing through zero heading.
Adjusted RMI pointers movement speed.
TACAN stowed (when receiver is off) bearing was changed to 155 degrees.
Minor fixes in TACAN pointer behaviour during mode transitions.
RMI VOR bearing pointer is set to fixed 270 degrees, when ILS station is received.
ARC-134 and ARC-127 frequency displays show '11 . 00' and '10 . 00' respectively when priority is set to the second cockpit, and the corresponding radio control box is switched off.
Finished rear cockpit RMI/HSI/ADI and other navigation-related animations.
Finished NAV priority functionality - AHRS fast erect/sync functions.
Fixed warning, and gear low pitched tone sounds volume control: - no more dependence of the Intercom Panel INT knob.
Fixed aft cockpit ADI test.
Fixed aft cockpit markers lights test.
Rear cockpit FD panel repeater implemented (plus brightness control).
Rear cockpit ADI pitch adjust was animated (knob has no function).
Some systems are still WIP, like FD commands, ADI pitch adjust or ADI’s rising runway symbol. Stay tuned!

It's good to see that campaigns are still getting lots of attention!!

.....even though there has been no mention of 2.5 progress in any newsletter this year

3rd Party Campaign Developers are not part of ED's Internal Development team..

I dont see you complaining or suggesting negative intentions when OrbX and Everyone release New Scenaries, Aircraft, Missions, and other MISC items for FSX/P3D before Lockheed or Dovetail release their next big update.

Maybe that has something to do with those companies not asking for monies up front then sit on a broken product for years on end? Just a wild guess, I could be wrong.


Haven't you been paying attention, Daz? 2.5 takes a back seat to Normandy, so there probably isn't any 2.5 "update" to speak of. Don't worry, it'll get here eventually and I'm sure it'll be the greatest thing since slice bread. I know, I know, there's no other sims that you can play, but patience, padawan...

When has ED Asked anyone to Pay for DCS 2.5?

FSX/P3D Developers do PrePurchases and Beta Access too.

When ED went from standalone release like FC, A10c and BS1 to the whole 'world' concept.

When ED started stripping out campaigns and started charging and extra 10 bucks for them.

When ED started stripping out assets and started charging for them.

When ED artificially inflated module prices (the oldest trick in the book) to then offer discounts for pre purchase, thus ensuring they never have to deliver a completed product.

Moving to "World" happened like 5+ years ago w/ DCS World 1.1.2.1
- This Allowed ED to Move All Products into ONE Environment instead of Separate installs for each Aircraft.
- ED Set it up so Current A-10C, KA-502 and P-51D Keys were valid w/ DCS World as well as Standalone A-10C 1.1.1.x and KA-50-2 1.1.1.x

75% of the Released Campaigns are being done by 3rd Party Mission Designers, not ED, you wanna gripe, but the fact is, guys that used to hang out here and make missions for everyone, are the ones building these campaigns now and getting paid for their work.

Assuming You mean the WWII Assets Pack, the Assets for WWII were never in DCS World Core, so they were never "Stripped out and Repacked to sell", the Objects, Ground Units and Aircraft in the WWII Assets Pack required extensive work, there needs to be some financial income to offset the cost, if you dont want them, dont buy the pack.

Inflated Module Prices? 59.99 has been the standard for new aircraft and titles (before the merge), Unless you mean other countries (ie Brazil) Price Changes.

Cant tell if serious or tarded

Charging for ww2 objects is pretty stupid, they should be part of the core game

That way people like me host host a dedicated server for others dont have to pay for it

The DLC maps should be paid for for people who want to fly on them but NOT for just people hosting

Very soon when normandy and assets are released, the already small online community will be fractured further

There has been talk of the dedicated server addressing this. But don't hold your breath.

Nate

The cost wouldn't be so high if the development didn't take so damn long. How long has Normandy been in development now? How many years? 777/1c have released 2 theatres, working on a third, a fleet of aircraft and map assets in the time its taken ED to get to the point they are with Normandy and its assets. Normandy's release date came and went, we're still waiting for the next one. ED are penalizing their fan base, by charging for map assets, because they suck at project management. Their own incompetence is the reason for the expanding cost of the WW2 development and the cost is passed onto the customer.

Asking about "paying for 2.5" is like asking if anyone's paid for DCS World. Nice try at making another strawman argument.

Now let's talk about 1.X.XX and currently-released modules. And please let's not use the "early access" cop out... the "environment is "early access," the modules are "early access"... looking at the store page, everything except A-10A/A-10C/Su-25/BS2/P-51/CA/FC3 are early access. F-15C and Su-27 are early access... despite being FC3 aircraft and have been in the DCS stable since... LOMAC? Then there's the 1.X.XX/2.X.XX environments... sure, the player is not asked to pay for that environment per se... but what are you going to do with your aircraft? Just stare at it?



And DCS needs to be patched each time a campaign comes out. Is that the mission designer's fault or is that evidence of ED's shortcomings?



Yet more evidence of ED's incompetence. Please cite any other game or sim where the customer is charged for AI assets....
They **HAVE** to ask for money for this or else they'd go under.

What kind of idiot would fly over WWII Normandy in a WWII aircraft without any WWII ground asset to fly against?



LOL!! Not holding our breath for stuff that's actually being DEVELOPED... no need to tell us about stuff that are being "talked about."

I have dual gtx 780s and it runs just fine, same for any dedicated VR game i have, BoS, Assetto Corsa, Project Cars and DCS (which still amazes me TBH) everything except P3D 3.4 using flyinside which obviously isn't native VR

I've never griped about the people making missions and getting paid for their work, that's fair do's.....the problem has always been that ED seem to put more focus and effort into these even though they have to support them through patches and fixes to the core game just to get them out for sale into the public domain......obviously at the expense of the other MUCH HIGHER priorities such as getting the modules out of beta that have stalled for years on end, getting Normandy out, getting the multi-dev branch combined into a single stream, sorting the mess that is Nevada and getting the remainder of the engine sorted out to support 2.5....you know, these little things that could do without getting sidetracked to support all these additional campaigns.

How you can defend ED and state that 'assets' were never in DCS World Core just shows the mentality of what this farce has become. You're effectively saying that 'Normandy' is just a terrain and nothing else, even though it is set in WW2/1944 - that's laughable and you wonder why people are up in arms about all these payware assets. It also goes to show the reasoning behind why the 'World' is so bleak, empty and uninteresting.......ED never actually thought to furnish a map with anything relevant, yet that has now become a showing of greed. If a 'World' doesn't include assets, then I assume it doesn't include the sky, weather and anything else that lives in a 'World' either and therefore these will also be payware additions in the near future.

How's about renaming this entire enterprise 'DS' instead......because only 'Digital' and 'Simulator' is relevant. The combat is limited and it most certainly isn't a 'World' in anyone's definition.

So sad to see customers defending companies that are obviously using unfair business practice but that's how the market goes.......when people accept to pay for a phone 700$, then 800$ and then 900$ do not get surprised when the phone reach a ludicrous price of 1100/1200$.....you drove the prices that high

Good to see VEAO still releasing updates on the hawk.......personally thought the project was shelved

To be fair, I can see companies charging for what they think the market will bear. Why charge $40 when you can well charge $60 and still have happy customers? Obviously, this situation is just an example and does not apply to ED...

Also, I don't think Skate is one you'd call a "customer" in the traditional sense of the word.

From the latest newsletter........

No mention of any progress whatsoever in the newsletter or 1.5.6 update 2 changelog for any of the high priority areas........but all is fine because time, effort and resources [aka budget] have been spent patching the non-modular engine for the latest payware campaign which they're obviously very proud of as its the first entry in the list!



The mind boggles as to just how crap this company can be. The bulk of changes which are mainly to aircraft have also been done by 3rd parties. Exactly what have ED been doing other than making changes for the new campaign? Very little by the looks of it.

How much do you want to bet the company folds before they realize their simming utopia? I sure hope not, but keeping on having to do work to support income streams of OTHER PEOPLE doesn't really bode well for ED's own bottom line. If the WWII Assets pack is any indication, they're low on funds and really have to find ways to milk more money from their customers. Everyone knows what kind of a niche product this is and all this bad publicity cannot really be doing well for the bottom line. The Pro-ED fanboys and those that say they buy/own all modules are all fine and good, but we can't really know how much income they've lost from people who've adopted a wait-and-see approach and continue to be on-the-fence about DCS products.

Well i guess this happens when you develop a software of this nature in the worst possible way thus burn resources. I mean not only you should optimized the development (aka avoid developing 3 different version) but also develop a real modular software (DCS is not modular, it just have accessible scripts but that's all).

And to think they would have surely made a KILLING by now had they pushed on with F-18 right after the A-10C and concentrated all their resources on that, instead of that insane wannabe FSX modular approach. I guess the idea was to make money on other people's work, but seems like that didn't quite work out when they have to constantly churn out huge patches to kinda keep it all together while it's constantly bursting on all seams. Crazy.

While they are wonderful tech geeks when it comes to modelling the airplanes, their complete lack of vision and understanding of the potential of the market is palpable. And it seems like this is all too common in the flightsim market today. I mean, it's crazy when you look at it:
There's a kick-ass F-18E Superhornet modelled by VRS, but in A CIVILIAN FLIGHTSIM with no proper combat environment. On the other hand, you have ED creating an impressive combat environment, but then churning out (directly or via proxy) "meh" airplane after meh airplane, TRAINER aircraft, weak recon / light attack choppers while their customer base and POTENTIAL customers sitting on the fence are constantly going "WHEN WILL WE GET THE F-18???" "Not yet, first we'll get you that nice L-39 trainer and here is Nellis TRAINING range, so you can simulate simulations of scenarios. Like, a simulator of a simulator, cool, huh?" "When is the Apache done, you were talking about that 10 years ago?" "Hey, who knows, but here is the Gazelle, it carries up to 4 guided missiles, has no night attack capability just like the KA-50 we already did, and it gets ripped to pieces by a single 23mm AAA shell."

It's unbelievable. Imho BOTH those teams (VRS and ED) have been wasting their efforts on a scale unheard of. VRS for developing a high end super detailed multirole jet in a civilian flightsim, and ED for modelling trainer and meh aircraft in a highly detailed combat environment. What is wrong with those people?? IT SHOULD BE VISE VERSA. And if I had lacked resources with developing the F18, I would have teamed up with the VRS guys long ago, even for a fortune, since the ROI on that would have been amazing and a much better investment than wasting resources on constant patches to keep that crazy soup together they themselves cooked up.

But it's all water under the bridge.