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.

Well, VRS started on the F-18 when DCSW wasn't even on the horizon.
But yeah, I agree with everything that you said.

lol

it is almost a decade that ED is working on this "impressive combat environment" but it is more a "non impressive training environment" that has little combat. Unless if by combat environment you mean shoot to each other then even Ace Combat Series offers that.

Been saying this for a while now... they could start their own currency if they pushed for F-18, F-14, and Apache... but no. Let's do trainers instead. Let's get Nevada instead. But in the meantime, let's do 3 dev branches too!

How people continue to defend these developers is beyond me.

Well, it seems that ED is kind of avoiding stuff that will put pressure on them. Take for example the F-16 that they simply avoided any development (i bet they had a thought about it), it would either steal players from BMS (which i don't think so) or increase the pressure due to comparison (all cons would be even more obvious). Think about it, right now there is no official modern fighter that would at least try to drag players from BMS which would increase the demand for a serious combat environment. Instead there are those over simplified jets which by itself is bought by those who accept compromises or just want to try something different to drop it lately.

The awful development choice (3 branch) becomes an excuse for a slow and vague development, by doing so they can focus on their military contracts and use the consumer as extra money pool. Moreover they can proceed with the development so slowly that it doesn't even cost that much (which is what i believe that it is happening). We already know that consumers will fall into any difficulty excuses devs might drop even when they are just lying to increase revunue, take time or simply to avoid responsibility for bad development.
The military version is their main platform and militaries looks for training simulator (does it remind anything?) thus a DC is not in their interest. With that in mind, you can see that any decision that will not benefit the military contracts is not in the interest of ED, they just have to deliver something once in a while to keep happy their customers (ban those who aren't and says truth in any forum) and incentive 3rd party developers.

All i'm saying is that at this point, after seeing same commercial mistakes done again and again for years, i started to thing that this pattern is not casual but rather a choice otherwise it would be stupid enough to not learn by your mistakes. Probably everything took a bad direction, for customers, when ED decided to proceed with military contracts (can't blame them, constant and well known amount of money), at this point customers became just an extra source of money. Perhaps even a group of people where you can use as beta test.

Oil field campaign.......sounds like boring to me.

Someone youtube 1st iraq war and decide to build a campaign?

pity I can't play as Bechtel and put the fires out.

Yep, another campaign.......which has to be suppported by another patch build and very little else.

At least we can see where the DCS progress is concentrated and where the focus is, as if it wasn't obvious already.

One would think that their military contracts would rub off on their 'gaming' sideline.

But their 'gaming' modules are half arsed (incomplete), tho lots of eye candy, which begs the question just how good is their military side?