Your point was that you find the user interface arcane, no? I told you that there is a graphical user interface if you don't like the original one. How is that besides your point?

The point was the need to use the arcane interface.

Kudos to Skate for making a GUI, but that still doesn't remove the fact that the game developer is/was asking users to use MS-DOS in 2017 and had to rely on someone else for a "fix."

LOL! If ED didn't supply "their updaters with a feature that lets users switch between versions" I wouldn't be able to play DCS World and ALL the MODULES that I PAID FOR because they F*CKED UP things real bad with they latest patch.

By the way "most companies" don't f*ck up things with they latest patches at least not in the level that ED did which it DOESN'T RUN AT ALL on my PC!!

So please I'm so pissed up at the moment with ED that I won't accept that "happy that ED does" BS argument since IMO ED only does this (the ability to "choose versions") because and only because of their pathetic and sorrow patch track record of breaking more stuff than it fixes with each new patch, PERIOD!

nothing wrong with MS-DOS windows and using commandline

seperates the men from the boys (in a non ghey way)

Though I was really hoping for a patch this week 1.5.7 is by far one of the crappiest versions of DCS to date

I agree with Ricunes, ED quality control must be terrible if a patch breaks a lot of normal working features and it gets to the end user without being spotted

The DCS Updater program is used by so many people that they really should develop a proper GUI version of it. But I won't criticize that to use the more esoteric functions of their patcher is command line. I will criticize their mission editor not taking advantage of the cutting edge technology that is the right mouse button though. You can't tab through text fields. There is no distinction between visible edit layers and player visibility. Middle click drag for ruler works in ME but not F10. The ME is about the most painful thing to use of its type I have seen.

If they see fit to release a patch and ask people to compensate for their lack of bother by using the MS-DOS prompt, I doubt they'll bother to fix any shortcomings of the ME.
EVERYBODY will use the patch, not everyone uses the ME.

ICE having to use the MS-DOS prompt are the least of the problems
1.5.7 is an utter shambles and 2 weeks later still no fix / patch has been released

Just hornet videos being released , with people oooing and ahhhing like the little guys from Toy Story

It's not an argument, it is a statement of my opinion.

I'm sorry that the current DCS version doesn't work for you. Contrary to what you all seem to believe of me, i don't think that ED's QA process is as good as it should be.

I just don't think that posting a bunch of expletives here will change anything for the better. Before you start to purée that old horse again, no, that doesn't mean that i think you can't do it here.

I also agree with you. Indeed there's nothing inherently wrong with the MS-DOS command lines "per se".
However I don't think that having a sorry state update/patch track/record is in this case (of ED) completely unrelated with having a "clunky" MS-DOS command feature to allow the user to choose whatever version of the game desired. I think both are evidences on how ED totally and continually keeps missing the REAL AND IMPORTANT DETAILS.

Like you correctly said: "ED quality control must be terrible if a patch breaks a lot of normal working features" and this same ED quality control is the one that allows the release of a last century clunky interface in order to give the user the ability to choose whichever version of DCS he or she desires to install which I bet is only present in order to minimise the impact of ED's pathetic update/patch track.

Bu yes, I guess that I agree with your major point: It's far worse having patches which completely breaks things, like this pathetic 1.5.7 (or whatever it is called) "patch" than having a "version chooser" based on MS-DOS commands.

In the end with patches like this (1.5.7) who needs patches/updates at all?!

Putting aside the experimental build branches DCS has been quite good about the stability of their release branch builds. One or two might have had a severe problem? I don't have any particular issues with the current release branch version.

Actually more than you would think. Myself included. Poor FPS and M/P crashes just to name a few.
Several big hosts have gone back to 1.5.6 as that is stable and still provides good numbers without stutters and lag.

Some fixes being floated around are to delete the shaders and allow the game to rebuild them. Sorry, but why wasnt this caught before? I truly dont believe that none of the internal team saw these issues. Or they simply pushed it anyway.

Missed the point again Sobek.

Why is this also the dialogue nowadays? People use it like a get out of jail free card!
"DCS sucks because of [reasons]"
"DCS doesn't suck, I think they're great because of [other reasons]"
"Oh really? So that makes up for [reasons]??"
"Oh, I wasn't arguing with you, I was simply giving an opposite view for absolutely no reason at all. It was just my opinion, no need to address it at all."

argument
noun
an exchange of diverging or opposite views



Maybe the "bunch of expletives" here isn't posted to "change anything for the better" but rather to vent frustrations and disappointment?

Before you start to puree (how'd you do that special "e"??) your next reply, might be best to know the difference between the two.

"You have released a new Hornet video!! We are eternally grateful!!"
Hehehehe... yeah, was just making a point there re: MS-DOS prompt and twisting it like it's a good thing. ED has a long road ahead of it. I hope they'll cover a good bit of it with 2.5 release.



**cough!**
Su-33 update
**cough!**





Why is this still suprising at this day and age? They were doing this back when DCS BS2 was just released and AFAIK, they've just been going downhill ever since.

*Sigh*.



Opposite view? I thought we were all in agreement that the feature to switch between versions was a good thing. You won't see me arguing that v1.5.7 not working for ricnunes is a good thing.



Yes, but not exclusively. The noun argument can also be used to describe a single or a series of statements in stated exchange that are used to persuade the opposing side of one's own conclusion. That was not what i was doing. You'll have to trust me on that.



Which is fine, i stated that categorically in my last post. You must have missed that part.



It's called "accent aigu", you will have to look that up for your keyboard layout, since your's is probably not German. Also, it would be conducive to the discussion if you could at least try to dial the snark down a little. I saw you wondering in the past why people don't want to get back to you in threads. I assume that that's a big part of it.

Please let's try to practice what we preach.



No, it's not necessarily a good thing. It is a **NECESSARY** thing considering how messed up ED's patching process is. You are happy that ED does it, saying it like it's a good thing and that other companies don't do it hinting that ED should be given points for making this option available. The opposite view is that this ISN'T a good thing but rather a necessity given ED's track record.



Might need to be clearer on that stance next time to avoid confusion then.



I just don't think that posting a bunch of expletives here will change anything for the better. Before you start to purée that old horse again, no, that doesn't mean that i think you can't do it here.
"I don't think what you're doing will change anything, but you can do it here."
Is that a fair translation of what you said?
If you recognize that ricnunes is just venting, what exactly is the point of calling him out on it and saying his venting is useless in terms of changing ED practices? It's clearly not what he was doing (trying to change ED practices) and you claim to have clearly understood it, so why the need for that statement from you?



é Aha!! Thanks!! ééé

I didn't say that you don't have a point. I said you missed mine. That's a fine but important difference.



Again, poisoning the well. I'm not saying that it's good when a patch doesn't work for someone. Just that the updater feature is a good and useful thing (some people need to switch versions a lot even if everything is working just fine, for various reasons). Nothing more, nothing less.



Will do, if in return you try a little harder not to always jump to the meaning that is most advantageous for the point you're trying to make (which seems to be that i don't have one, judging from your statements).



I didn't state that to call him out. I made that statement to illustrate my point of view in this discussion. You repeatedly try to paint a picture of me that is not accurate (namely that i'm uncritical of ED). I am not, i just express my criticism differently.

Sorry, was unclear there. What I meant to say was that I probably/obviously missed your point or that I was unclear... you know what? Scratch that, let me try again: If I've missed/misunderstood your point, I'd appreciate it if you'd say it again, re-word it, or point it out so that I can address it (the point) properly. Thanks!



Ah, I get you.... I'm not very familiar with the "poisoning the well" fallacy; I've looked it up but still don't see how that applies here.
Sure, the updater is a good and useful thing and it is for most other games and sims. What I'm saying is that ED doesn't get a pat on the back on this one (despite it being useful) because it is a NECESSITY due to their own ineptitude. Just like how the GUI by Skate is a good thing... but ED still doesn't get a pat on the back for it becausee we shouldn't be using MS-DOS in 2017 and people shouldn't be having to make GUIs to cover up ED's ineptitude.

If ED didn't have a two steps forward, three steps back approach to patching, if each new patch was 95% better than the last one and the 5% is easily fixed, then yeah, the updater feature is a good thing and NOT a necessity..... but this isn't the situation we're in.

It's like bringing your car to the shop for an oil change and the car shop gives you an extra bottle of oil (for topping up) and a syringe (to take excess oil out). Sure, that's a good thing for the most part but not if you're having to use it after each oil change because the car shop keeps on getting the oil level wrong! Oh, and better get a wrench too because they've not tightened up the bolt properly and you're leaking oil....



Hehehehe.... why will I jump on a less-advantageous meaning? If I have a word that fits 100%, why use one that is only 75%? And no, I didn't mean to say you don't have a point.... apologies for the confusion.



Which is??



I'm not painting you anything, Sobek... also, if your criticism is that you're happy that ED gives updaters, that command-line interfaces is common in the IT world, and that you find the need to say that "your words here will not change anything for the better," I fail to see where your criticism of ED is.

Sadly there seems to be zero players on multiplayer on 1.5.6 right now (I have been looking)

You don't say! I think we did mention that this was a major issue about 126 years ago.

I remember back when I was flying DCS A10C that when a new patch would come out, we would wait until we had the "higher up's" approval to patch to it.... and if there were issues, we'd roll back or stay at an older version.


Translation: YESTERDAY in ED-speak