If ED released software with an intent never to finish/complete then we wouldn't have anything to complain about. However this isn't the case so it comes down to whether their 'early access' timelines are acceptable. Everyone has differing opinions on this but mine is that ED are already pushing the boundaries and it certainly doesn't give me a good feeling as they constantly take on more work and don't seem to have any impetus on finishing or fixing some of their products which were released a long time ago.

Troll, for you to say you're happy with the current products, that's good for you but not for a lot of others. You also speak as if 2.5 hasn't already been delayed. It has, maybe not with the 2.5 version number but this is functionality that was supposed to have been released a long time ago.......so surely you can appreciate why lots of campaigns that have been released over the last 6-9 months gives many people CONCERN if the support and development and also possible re-testing is going to eat up available resources and have a detrimental effect on 2.5.

Not many programmers can work on every system, very unique, very advanced systems.
Resources managed very differently to any other game because of sim and system accuracy.
Long time to train up programmer to work on new created systems.
Lead programmer would lead the way, do or teach? Hard balance no with this type of new tech.
More resources perhaps worse and more problems in most situations here.

Just a little levity amongst the hating on ED (which is deserved). The love for ED (which can only mean free product and beta testing stuff we won't see for at least a year). And sometimes when it's left wide open I take the shot.

Don't leave your girlfriend unattended in the bar when I'm around. I'll take advantage of that too.

No part of that post was adressed at you, sorry if that was unclear.



No offense but you wouldn't have a snowball's chance in hell with her.

I haven't participated in the discussion lately by typing posts but I can assure you that I've been following it.
The reasons why I haven't posted is because others (namely Ice and Paradaz but not only) have basically posted what I also feel and think about the subject so there was no need (IMO) to "duplicate" posts or points of view.
And since I've been following this discussion (albeit not posting lately) I never read any post of yours where you agree that "DCS is late", "don't agree with the way ED does business" and so on but I also admit that I may have missed the post where you explicitly said that.

Anyway, I'm glad that we are on the same page regarding this:
I do agree DCS is late.
I don't agree with the way ED does business.
I have the exact same software as everybody else. I.e. unfinished.
I'm also waiting for fixes to modules I have bought and paid for.






The only reason why I'm not frustrated with ED/DCS is because I haven't buy any of those recent DCS modules. Actually the DCS modules that I have are: DCS BS2, DCS A-10C, DCS FC3, DCS Huey and DCS Combined Arms or basically the only ones that can be considered minimally "complete" (with this I mean, they aren't in an Alpha/Beta state).
If I have had bought any other DCS modules you can bet that I would be really, really frustrated. For example a few years ago I was just about to purchase DCS Mi-8 and I'M GLAD that I didn't buy it and this serves for any other DCS module released in the meanwhile!

Speaking of DCS WWII, I'm also glad that I didn't "invest" on their Kickstarter! I had a "gut feeling" on this one and I'm glad I followed it and again I have the same "gut feeling" about all other remaining modules.
Anyway, if I had invested in DCS WWII I can guarantee you that I wouldn't be "frustrated" by doing it so, I would be PISSED and yes I would have HATE ED with a PASSION!
You know for me a WWII simulator means one thing above all: Minimal historical accuracy/realism and again there's absolutely nothing about historical accuracy/realism with DCS WWII! Bf-109K and FW-190D over Normandy, really??
What's next?? Me-262 over Dunkirk??
No proper unit set such as WII Tanks, Ships, other planes, etc... And I could again, go on and on and on...


For example and regarding DCS WWII I even proposed that ED should model the Bulge/Ardennes map instead of Normandy which means that the entire and currently planed and in development plane set of flyable DCS WWII aircraft could be used with historical accuracy (or in a historically accurate map). The end result was that I was attacked by some fan(actics). This is an another example of a complete lack of focus and above all a complete inability to learn from mistakes a readapt from them and how complacent the ED/DCS fan(actic) are with this wrong policy/strategy from ED. This leaves me to believe that the future of ED/DCS will be very grin if existent at all!


In the end I believe that if we all as customers were critical to ED than this would leave no other choice for ED than to really start to get their act together, learn from their mistakes and above all, finally FOCUS on what's really important! This I believe could only to good for all of us which enjoy playing combat flight simulations!


If people keep giving blank checks to ED (which is what really happens when people buy those DCS modules that many never be finished) than what will really happen is that ED will eventually die from a very slow death since there's no way that this current ED "strategy" will bring "new blood" (new players) to the game and even most of current ED supporters will eventually leave the game (nobody is able to wait forever) which means that only a few fan(actics) will remain which will obviously result in ED's demise!


Feel free to agree or disagree with this assessment of mine. For me it's the same really (despite and I admit, I would prefer to have a much better DCS in the future).

Mi-8 wasn't developed by ED, why would that status of that module make you upset with ED? I, on the other hand, do own it and find it enjoyable in its current state - you are really missing out.


Why when ED wasn't responsible for the KickStarter? That was started by a third party that collapsed and ED picked up the pieces. If anything, people should be happy.


Normandy, yes, since that is what was being developed by a third party for the WW2 KickStarter. Again, ED picked up the pieces and ran with it. What's the point of scrapping the theater entirely? ED has never ran nor participated in a KickStarter campaign...


ED already stated that is part of the process... In fact in the Weekly News last week were some included SS of the Spitfire as well as units/vehicles from that time period.

Great! I think that map would be a splendid addition to the lineup when time and resources permit. Why can't you see that ED picked up the pieces to a puzzle that was discarded and decided to "make it happen." Personally, I would have been happier if ED never got involved following the collapse of that third party and their kickstarter and simply stuck with Gen 3+ jets. I don't deride ED nor hate them nor attack them for their decisions. I understand that they are a business; I do not have ownership in that company, thus my opinion only matters whether I open my wallet or not.



What's really important? Or, just maybe, are you really only concerned with what you think is important? If you ask ten different people, you'll probably get ten different answers.


Blank Checks? Interesting... So how many modules has ED actually authored and released in an unfinished state that is still unfinished? Again, you cannot hold ED responsible for the state of 3rd party modules. Here's a simple solution... Don't buy into any module that is in an early access state. For instance when the DCS-F-18C module is finally made available as an early access module in the future, please don't buy it. Make sure you wait until ED states that the product is in its finally state.


I think it is safe to say that everybody wants a better DCS for the future. The difference lies in those that can see where DCS is going, even though there are some flaws; and then there are those that will never be happy. Some people will always find something to complain about.

Ahh...that old chestnut:





From the Kickstarter:



Here's a thought...if you want to claim you have no responsibility on a project...maybe you shouldn't plaster your name all over it.

The Mi-8 "was" (I would say "is" but "was" is probably more correct) developed by a company named Belsimtek but who is really Belsimtek?? My gut feeling (and note that this is only a personal opinion or again a "gut feeling") is that Belsimtek is indeed ED with a different name (a sort of a proof of concept and advertising for the supposed "3rd party support").

And even if I'm wrong it's well know that there's a big involvement of ED in ALL and EVERY DCS module made by ANY third party. DCS is definitely NOT like (or not as "modular" as) FSX or SF2 where third can develop their addons without any "intervention" by the core game development team!

So yes and like it or not, ED is involved with DCS Mi-8 as it is with any other (third part made) DCS module!






Force10, already replied that for me. But even if your line of though was correct it is well known that ED took over the entire WWII project and as soon as ED decided this (to take over DCS WWII) this means that ED is now the full and only responsible for the DCS WWII project (for both good and bad)!





Which gets me back to my original point. Every "process" related to DCS has ED involved at some level or another. ED resources are very limited and there's an insane number of "processes" related to DCS which again means that ED's resources are already stretch thin (and very thin!).





Of course I'm concerned with that I THINK is important TO ME. I'm a customer and as such I use my own money, so sorry if I'm thinking about my own concerns and not about yours!

Anyway, with your point it seems you completely missed out my point and as such I won't post again what I posted here in several posts. What I can advise you is that you READ ALL my previous post. Maybe you could learn something (or maybe not).




"Some flaws", really???
If you think that decade long delays and DCS modules that perpetually stay in Alpha/Beta state despite charging money for them than "whatever suits your fancy".
For me this far more than a simple "some flaws" but each one on its own

It is well known that Belsimtek are former ED employees and benefit greatly from that past relationship. They are a separate entity.


Actually DCS is as modular as FSX. The difference is if you want "paid-official-3rd party status" you have to abide by whatever rules and contracts you agree to with ED.

I have never seen said documents, thus I cannot discuss those details any further.



Yes, ED is now responsible for the WW2 development. ED is not responsible for what took place prior to that acquisition.


I agree that I think ED could be running thin after taking over the WW2 project; another reason I wished they never touched it.

There's a difference between thinking about yourself and typing on the internet like everyone agrees with you and ED should only do what you think is important.

Your point was to bash ED, that is all I got out of it. I'm not going to go and read your incessant whining when you post zero facts and don't even consider other opinions than your own. Further you can go back and read all of my posts and learn a thing or too as well. Since you want to think that your dribble is of any importance in the greater scheme of things...

I hate delays too! What has been delayed for a decade? You do know what a decade is - yes? Maybe you were just being facetious and embellishing, which does little to prove anything you type as you have proven that you will type patently false statements.

Again, maybe you have a hard time understanding things that you read... What ED module is in beta for a long period of time that is not currently finished?

So you think ED should give you access to a module that you have not paid for? If ED, clearly, identifies that a module is available for sale for early-access, typically alpha/beta, then what is there to complain about? YOU have a choice to pay money to get early access or YOU can wait until it is fully released.

This is no different than EA or any other developer giving early access to those who pre-order their games as well. Now if ED stated a module was released, as in finished, and it really was only in an alpha state - well then you would have a valid complaint.




No one will argue that ED is flaw-free. I think the difference is some people are more adult about it than others in the manner by which they discuss things. Every delay has been given justification; whether you like it or not, or whether you agree with it or not is irrelevant.

Every delay has justification?

If 'everything is subject to change' is good enough for you which transparently covers every excuse known to man nor beast then yes, ED have fully validated all their multiple year delays in 5 words.

Some folk refuse to see beyond the propaganda.
If I was ED I wouldn't refuse to acknowledge their part in the kickstarter (actually they never have denied they were in partnership, that is a line that the moderators over on EDs forums like to throw around) as in the year that they and RRG were in partnership the development of the ww2 project was far more productive than what has occurred during EDs sole ownership. EDs sole take over, the dismissal of ilya and crew from project management, has been a complete disaster, not only for DCS ww2, but for everything else they have had in development. The forced delays, extra work, abysmal failures to hit release dates. The last couple of years has been nothing short of pathetic to be honest.

Maybe some of us are just more "passionate" about things than others are? I would consider myself more mellow really, so I'm surprised you took my being critical for "emotion." I guess you're more laid-back than most, Troll.

Like how some people can watch a movie without twitching a muscle, while others would shout "yeah! knock his socks off!!" or others would cringe and jump in their seat....



You have finally admitted that you have difficulty seeing it from the "more passionate" sort of view.

Much negativity for this and you have no control.
Sell all the modules and don't buy more.
Then no need to keep posting then, Paradaz and others same thing over and just all to negativity, will make you sick.

I happy with my DCS aircraft, I see bright future.
F18, F14 Carrier Operations

update: DCS F/A-18C OFP 13C, (Lot 20) ATFLIR instead of the NITE Hawk pod
https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=168861&page=79

Maps like Strait of Hormuz and Normandy.

Yes ED to many commitments? Other military contracts? The DCS planes just fly better.
How many FSX, x-plane users will by all this once 2.5, F18, F14 Carrier Operations?
Many will no other and no better, perhaps then buy Normandy and ww2 planes too?

Yes take to long long long time, will be all consolidated in two weeks.

Info-Note #2 - New DCS: F-14 Tomcat Footage
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WCaCa2ZMrRI

Sorry, but no. You are free to post what you want, we are free to post what we want. Positive or negative. If we weren't allowed to post our discontent, might as well be on the ED forums. Luckily, SimHQ is not that kind of place.

Others have indeed sold off their modules or even got so digusted with them they gave them away for FREE. Quality product? I don't think so. Personally, I still have my modules because I see that tiny, tiny speck of light in the distance. Unfortunately, I cannot gauge how far away it is in this pitch blackness!



Good for you! But what are you saying? That **WE** should all be happy because you are?



Pfft! You really believe that?



That is assuming DCS 2.5 will be able to deliver as promised. I hope you're not holding your breath on that one.



Some of us want to play our games in our lifetime, not to pass it on to their grandkids to see if ED will finally get it's act together.

What you describe confirms exactly and precisely that I precious said. Belsimtek IS ED! Only with a different Brand/Name.
Or resuming Belsimtek is a "de facto" division/Subsidiary of ED.




NO IT ISN'T! Not even a snowball's chance in hell! As soon as there's the absolute need for the developer to integrate the so called "third-party" addons in the sim and the third parties cannot do it by themselves this means that this sim isn't modular.
Or resuming with FSX or SF2 you can develop your addon/third party aircraft and drop it in the sim without any interference or action by the developer - That's MODULAR!





As I said before and incurring the risk or repeating myself again, as soon as ED "decided" to take over the project it became fully responsible for it (for both the better or worse!) and as such it's even responsible for any past issues/promises.

It's like someone delegating you a task to buy a working car but then you buy a car which you know beforehand that doesn't come with an engine on it and even so you still claim that it's not your fault that the car doesn't work! What's the logic of that??

Besides and just like others have said, ED was part of the DCS WWII development team since the very beginning - actually they are (always) part of ALL DCS modules (even the "third party" ones) since NO module can be integrated without ED's intervention or action (see my last point above!)





Well, at least we agree in something. Maybe there's still hope for mankind afterall...






You accuse me of bashing ED and yet you admit that you haven't read my past posts!! Again what's the logic of that

If you don't like my opinion (and it's an "opinion" NOT a "bash") then fine. But don't expect me to stop posting my own opinion just because it bothers you and/or ED which you seem to be a fan(actic) of!





Nevada Map??
Maybe it still doesn't reached a decade (10 years) delay yet but it's VERY, VERY close it!

And since Nevada can only be played on a Beta version of DCS I don't consider the Nevada map to have been "released" or properly released and as such it's likely that I won't be wrong with the decade delay regarding the Nevada map.

And again, in my past posts (and again if you have read them) what I said is that IF ED doesn't get their act together and start to get focus than yes we will certainly have products that will be delayed in terms of decades!





First of all, it's you that seems to have a "hard time understanding things"! I didn't say "ED modules are in beta for a long period of time and not finished", I SAID: "DCS modules are in beta for a long period of time and not finished"!
See the difference?? I even put it in underline and bold so you can understand it better (I hope).

But even looking at ED "non-third party" modules it's not hard to find modules that are in this same/similar situation:

How about Nevada (again)?? How about Mi-8 (again)??
DCS WWII????????

DCS 2.0?? Which afterall 2.0 won't a final version (which is basically an Alpha) but it will be 2.5 (eventually)?


Resuming, the only modules that aren't beta for a long period and as such "finished" are:
- DCS Su-25T, DCS BS2 and DCS A-10C.
- I also consider DCS Huey (which is probably my favourite DCS module) to be in a "finished" state but there are many fellow simmers out there (or around here) that disagree with me with me on this one!
So as you can see I'm not that "basher" that you think of. I just try to look at ED/DCS without a fan(actic) "filter" on my eyes!





NO, I think they should FINISH their modules!! Do I have to mention Mi-8 or WWII again??

And for that they (ED) will to re-task and drastically change their way of doing things or resuming have to get their act together and get focused!
Perhaps it's time for ED to consider ditching some of their products like WWII?? Or ditching Korea (if they also plan to go that way).
Perhaps ditching the support of old cold-war aircraft such as the F-5 (yes, I know it's a "third party" but again all DCS modules have some level of "interference" by ED).
Or resuming, centering only on modern combat aircraft!





I don't buy alphas/betas, period!
And I don't buy alpha/beta for DCS because I DO NOT TRUST that the devs (whoever they are) will ever finish their products (again Mi-8 is just a small example of that) due to the reasons that I've already stated before and in the past - Actually what I've been posting here are the reasons why I do have a distrust for the alpha/beta modules of DCS.
You would have noticed this if you have actually read my past post instead of assuming that I'm just a "basher".





Again and again and again and even again:
- I'm NOT complaining about ED selling alpha/beta products!
- I'm STATING that I DO NOT THRUST or DO NOT BELIEVE that those alpha/beta DCS modules will ever be finished and in case some will even be finished that will take almost a decade or more to reach the "final" status!






And I think that the difference is some people seem to be more narrow-minded than others - perhaps it's the "fan(actic) effect".

And I don't believe in their justifications!
I believe that the massive delays on the overall DCS project is that ED simply "put in the mouth more than it can chew" and this is what I've been posting here.

If you don't like my opinion than again fine but then again I won't stop posting it just because you don't like it!

You're welcome.




Lets say that a car dealer sells you a fancy new car which you liked a lot but that car is sold without any glass windows/windshield but at the same time and despite the car coming initially without the glass windows/windshield the price already includes them and according to the car dealer those same glass windows/windshield should be available and installed on you car in the next two week time period.
But then several weeks have passed, several months have passed and YEARS have passed and still no glass windows/windshield for your fancy "new" car which by now it's not so new anymore, by the way!

What would you feel about that car dealer?? Wouldn't you hate him??

If not, perhaps you could give me your recipe for being so calm? I admit that sometime it could be useful for me...





Yes I've been around when Falcon 4 or IL-2 CloD were released and I've been around for a far longer time in terms of computer flight simulations (certainly as long as you and perhaps longer than you).
I can't speak that much about IL-2 CloD since I never bought it (and I still don't own it) but I can speak about Falcon 4.

It's true that when Falcon 4.0 first came out it was riddled with bugs which pretty much made "unplayable" but soon afterwards (one year later) official patch 1.08 was released which solved most of the bugs and made Falcon 4.0 a rather stable and playable sim.
But soon afterwards Microprose ceased to exist so no further (official) development on Falcon 4 was possible by the original developers.

A similar situation with IL-2 CloD also happened, where the development company also seem to have ceased to exist.

But that's not the case with ED and DCS.
ED is (still) active so in this case there's someone to be accounted for the decisions regarding DCS (as opposed to both Falcon 4.0 and IL-2 CloD).






No, no arguments are "invalid" here (at least not to me). We may strongly disagree but "disagreeing" or believing that the other opinion is wrong is very different from being "invalid".

ricnunes,
No module in dcs ever really finished ever, even Huey. Always make better fm or system modeling. Like code art and painter never happy with some parts still need to move forward. Back port when new projects make new tech like leatherneck will on mig21 I see. The level of sim art we still have now is high no? Hard to please everyone and make finishing touches. Fm and combat systems in dcs still exceeds any other sim, new net code so better multiplayer coming.

Yes, but just like having healthy bones doesn't mean your body is healthy, DCS needs more than a framework of systems and flight models to be successful.

By comparison, there were more successful sims in the past with lower fidelity. Why? Because the rest of the sim more than compensated. You don't get so annoyed with little mistakes when the overall package is good. If it's not, people start getting irritated about things like inner engine temperatures. When systems modeling is all you have, you better not make any mistakes with it.

Older sims were created with a top-down approach. Start with the game you're trying to make, add in details of plane modeling and systems later. DCS is a bottoms-up approach. Start with the planes and then build a game around them. Yet when the plane-building aspect is never finished, how much time is there to make the game? How can you build a forest when you keep going back to improve the same 4 trees? There are issues like air to air missiles and stupid accurate ground fire that have been a problem for literally a decade.

I don't see how anyone can believe that top-down isn't the better way to go. BMS proved you can take a game like F4 and bolt on the more realistic stuff later. After over 20 years of development starting with Flanker 1, I think it has been shown that bottoms-up is a flawed process for sim development. Back to Baghdad was the epitome of that, an awesome F-16 systems simulator with the world's worst game attached to it.



The Jedi Master

Jedi Master,
Yes do agree on points, dcs path reset by contracts and so now will not ever make some happy? To accurate level to make themselves happy (long beta)? Some like more of game less accurate sim fm? BMS example. Not accurate for real life military missions. Sense and feeling of flight better in dcs for me and that matters to me when flying. Yes fix missiles some tanks less accurate now i have seen.

In what sense must there be an "emotional connection/response" in order to call someone an idiot? Can you not call someone an idiot simply for the basic reason that he/she **IS** an idiot?

I call things as they are. If it's good, then it's good. I have no problem admitting that to be the case for DCS A-10C. If it's bad, then it's bad. If ED keeps making idiotic decisions and excuses, then that is what they are.

"Hating with a passion?" Where'd you get that one??



Er, no. It's a question of YOU understanding views different from your own. That's why we keep going 'round and 'round in circles, because you keep running 'round and 'round in circles.



We have indeed seen your views, but they do not stack up against the evidence we see in reality from ED. Like your "take a break" example. It works with other companies and other scenarios, but not with ED, therefore, you are wrong on that front. Can YOU not see that?



Since when is being passionate about something a "concern"? And even if it was, this is not what the thread is talking about, yet you keep shifting the discussion to you being "concerned" that some members are too passionate about the hobby.

Let me give you something to think about though --- do you think the products we enjoy today are a result of "meh!" thinking? How many of the advancements we have were out of intense passion for a particular field of study? People who are concerned about small things may very well be concerned about bigger things as well.

If you don't "get it," think it's over the top, or don't agree with it, fine. If you have no passion to go against those that do, then do not complain about them having too much passion.



Haha! "Crying and compaining" is what you're calling it now? Clearly YOU have not understood the discussion and the "evidences" and reasoning put forward.


Make way for the