David's obviously smoking something and he's not sharing. Either that or he's just blind or ignorant (or both) about ED's track record.

First off, the move to DirectX11... was that really needed? Did that really trump all the bug-squashing and module-refining that needed to be done? I'm no master programmer, but DirectX is a graphics issue, right? "Fixing" DirectX does nothing for the non-graphically related bugs?

Second, the more they integrate stuff, the more likely it is to break in little areas. At what stage do they stop fixing stuff to move on to the next big project? We can see evidence of that now.... most things being put to the side and people are hoping "just get 2.5 out the door and things will be better." Really? I used to dread patching DCS because I knew some stuff wouldn't work or other stuff I needed for my custom views and widescreen setup would be transferred to different .lua files.

Third, what's the sense in allowing 3rd party to make modules and only get 30% if you can do the module and get 100%? Is the work needed to be done not worth the lost 70% income? I see the point of letting others do something you weren't going to do yourself anyway and thus get 30% for something you didn't really want to make, but for things like the Tomcat?

Paradaz is right.... the products are great, but they fly in a flawed environment. DCS A10C is awesome, no denying that. But when your view distance is so low and you get stutters when your bombs hit (or other people's bombs hit) and you get creamed by a sniper in a BMP, well, that becomes a different matter.

DCS is fine if all you want to do is fly around and take pretty screenshots. Maybe a little of "combat-lite" or simulating a training environment. After that, it struggles.