#4354258 - 04/28/17 06:25 PM
Re: DCS 1.5 / 2.0 Updates discussion thread
[Re: xXNightEagleXx]
|
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 16,082
- Ice
Veteran
|
Veteran
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 16,082
Philippines / North East UK
|
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. They either have no skill to compete with BMS or no desire to do so. I don't quite buy the first reason but can't understand why they just don't come out and say the 2nd reason. However, considering their history, the 1st reason does sound quite plausible. Everything released is a "test bed" for some other future product... yeah right. 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. What recent work did they do that we can assume to be from a military contract? This excuse is getting old... what product can we see that would pass for something that the military would use? That military either has very low tolerances or just wants trainers to save having to spend jet fuel. 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. “Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.” -George CarlinThey are a business. Yet they don't make modules that are GUARANTEED to make money. They don't listen to what their customers want. The big reason we have Nevada was because this was in Beta 2 of DCS A10C and they promised it would return at a later date. Incompetence is really more believable, the only other reason is they don't want to be earning serious profits. Which one is more likely?
- Ice
|
|
#4354270 - 04/28/17 07:05 PM
Re: DCS 1.5 / 2.0 Updates discussion thread
[Re: KraziKanuK]
|
Joined: Dec 2016
Posts: 27
Jetronic
Junior Member
|
Junior Member
Joined: Dec 2016
Posts: 27
|
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? I think the 'military contracts' are more largely speculative and based on hope rather than concrete reality. After the A-10c and the drone thingy what military contracts have there been? I think ED thought if everyone developed a trainer, Air Forces around the world would bite their hand off with open checkbooks, i'm fairly sure this hasn't happened and ED are now existing on a hand to mouth basis with campaign sales keeping the lights on and the rent paid for another month. IMHO of course.
Last edited by Jetronic; 04/28/17 07:07 PM.
|
|
#4354273 - 04/28/17 07:20 PM
Re: DCS 1.5 / 2.0 Updates discussion thread
[Re: - Ice]
|
Joined: Jan 2011
Posts: 96
GrimLeo
Junior Member
|
Junior Member
Joined: Jan 2011
Posts: 96
|
They are a business. Yet they don't make modules that are GUARANTEED to make money. They don't listen to what their customers want. The big reason we have Nevada was because this was in Beta 2 of DCS A10C and they promised it would return at a later date. Incompetence is really more believable, the only other reason is they don't want to be earning serious profits. Which one is more likely?
So ED should just 'follow the money' and break their promises. That would be a Flaming Cliffs 3 (Maybe with an F-16). I for one like that ED keep promises. I have gotten a lot of value from a $40 investment in the DCS WWII Kickstarter and I still have the P-47 and Me262 to go. Got the Nevada map for free from ordering the A-10 beta. The only problem is the time it takes ED to keep a promise. DCS F/A-18C has been delayed by 'distraction' of DCS WWII, DCS L-39, and DCS multi-map client. Hopefully they can get it out by the end of the year.
|
|
#4354278 - 04/28/17 07:53 PM
Re: DCS 1.5 / 2.0 Updates discussion thread
[Re: GrimLeo]
|
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 16,082
- Ice
Veteran
|
Veteran
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 16,082
Philippines / North East UK
|
So ED should just 'follow the money' and break their promises. That would be a Flaming Cliffs 3 (Maybe with an F-16). Or F-14. Definitely F-18. Or Apache. As for "break their promises," they've not really been known to meet their deadlines (aka promises) so what's the difference? I for one like that ED keep promises. I have gotten a lot of value from a $40 investment in the DCS WWII Kickstarter and I still have the P-47 and Me262 to go. Got the Nevada map for free from ordering the A-10 beta. The only problem is the time it takes ED to keep a promise. Wait... what do you mean by "promises"? Commitments? While ED may follow a "commitment" to develop a module, they do not follow their own "commitment" on how long development will take. DCS F/A-18C has been delayed by 'distraction' of DCS WWII, DCS L-39, and DCS multi-map client. Hopefully they can get it out by the end of the year. That's what they said last year....
- Ice
|
|
#4354289 - 04/28/17 08:33 PM
Re: DCS 1.5 / 2.0 Updates discussion thread
[Re: watermanpc]
|
Joined: Jan 2011
Posts: 96
GrimLeo
Junior Member
|
Junior Member
Joined: Jan 2011
Posts: 96
|
As a pointy nose multirole fast mover, DCS F/A-18C should beat DCS A-10C in sales. ED should have AFM(built on F-15/SU-27 AFM work), 3D modeling, FLIR pod (A-10), and basic ground radar (Viggen) done. Likely system modeling is the long pole in the tent with advance ground radar a good medium pole. Edit: Per Wikipedia, the A-10C uses the AN/AAQ-28(V)4 LITENING AT pod. The F/A-18C uses the AN/AAS-38 "Nitehawk" pod. Basic concept is the same so you can reuse the DCS A-10C FLIR software as a starting point. Further edit: Per Northrop Grumman, the Marine Corps F/A-18's use LITENING. My guess is we are getting an older USN F/A-18C with the Nitehawk.
Last edited by GrimLeo; 04/29/17 04:54 AM.
|
|
#4354337 - 04/29/17 02:23 AM
Re: DCS 1.5 / 2.0 Updates discussion thread
[Re: GrimLeo]
|
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 1,943
Nate
Member
|
Member
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 1,943
Dublin, Ireland
|
As a pointy nose multirole fast mover, DCS F/A-18C should beat DCS A-10C in sales. ED should have AFM(built on F-15/SU-27 AFM work), 3D modeling, Litening pod (A-10), and basic ground radar (Viggen) done. Likely system modeling is the long pole in the tent with advance ground radar a good medium pole. Well if they are going to borrow others work, you'd imagine they'd grasp one of MBots various dynamic campaigns. Nate
|
|
#4354402 - 04/29/17 01:09 PM
Re: DCS 1.5 / 2.0 Updates discussion thread
[Re: Art_J]
|
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 16,082
- Ice
Veteran
|
Veteran
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 16,082
Philippines / North East UK
|
If they don't intend to develop their own DC functionality for whatever reason, I'm sorry, but "if"?? Has there been any indication that they might even consider doing their own DC? they could at least tweak the engine and mission editor to be more compatible with 3rd party applications You mean more than the current "here's a new campaign DLC and here's a new patch to make the campaign DLC work"?? If they have to patch the game for a campaign DLC to work, how much work do you think is needed to support MBot and all possible 3rd-party add-ons? So much for a "modular" DCS World!
- Ice
|
|
#4354432 - 04/29/17 04:06 PM
Re: DCS 1.5 / 2.0 Updates discussion thread
[Re: Muggs]
|
Joined: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,042
cichlidfan
Member
|
Member
Joined: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,042
Woodbridge, VA, USA
|
A DCS World lighting update will not fix a module specific issue. That is up to Belsimtek to fix. Also, if you haven't seen evidence of improved lighting, you haven't been paying attention.
ASUS ROG Maximus VIII Hero, i7-6700K, Noctua NH-D14 Cooler, Crucial 32GB DDR4 2133, Samsung 950 Pro NVMe 256GB, Samsung EVO 250GB & 500GB SSD, 2TB Caviar Black, Zotac GTX 1080 AMP! Extreme 8GB, Corsair HX1000i, Phillips BDM4065UC 40" 4k monitor, VX2258 TouchScreen, TIR 5 w/ProClip, TM Warthog, VKB Gladiator Pro, Saitek X56, et. al., MFG Crosswind Pedals #1199, VolairSim Pit, Rift CV1
|
|
#4354433 - 04/29/17 04:16 PM
Re: DCS 1.5 / 2.0 Updates discussion thread
[Re: cichlidfan]
|
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 187
Muggs
Member
|
Member
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 187
UK
|
How can it be up to the creator of a module to fix a generic lighting issue? If BST add a rotating beacon light I don't expect them to have to code that it shouldn't be simply an omni directional light. I'd have thought ED would have different types of light for the module creators to assign and so tell the rendering engine which is which. Here's a pretty picture to keep you happy.
Last edited by Muggs; 04/29/17 04:16 PM.
|
|
#4354490 - 04/29/17 11:04 PM
Re: DCS 1.5 / 2.0 Updates discussion thread
[Re: cichlidfan]
|
Joined: Apr 2014
Posts: 871
Winfield
model citizen
|
model citizen
Member
Joined: Apr 2014
Posts: 871
QLD
|
A DCS World lighting update will not fix a module specific issue. That is up to Belsimtek to fix.
Also, if you haven't seen evidence of improved lighting, you haven't been paying attention. "paying attention"....... Sounds like another DLC to me. After the cost of Normandy, AI Unit packs, I doubt there is anyone left other than the ed tester's, moderators and community managers (who get free modules\maps) with a full wallet who could afford to pay "attention"...... Watch this space for the next weeks Ed update Early access to the Normandy campaign called none other than "Paying Attention" RRP 9.95 The campaign where lighting is the main focus, a slide show sequence if you will between 1.5 and 2.1 Normandy for the blind. Mind you, we have to pay for this in order to see it
|
|
#4354568 - 04/30/17 12:35 PM
Re: DCS 1.5 / 2.0 Updates discussion thread
[Re: watermanpc]
|
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 16,082
- Ice
Veteran
|
Veteran
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 16,082
Philippines / North East UK
|
Yes, yes... of course, lighting has been one of the biggest problems in DCS. It's been the issue that has been driving people away in droves and keeping other interested buyers on the fence about this product. Thankfully, with improved lighting now implemented, we can finally enjoy DCS again and all the other minor, minor issues will be addressed soon.
- Ice
|
|
#4355274 - 05/04/17 10:25 AM
Re: DCS 1.5 / 2.0 Updates discussion thread
[Re: GrimLeo]
|
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 4,840
ricnunes
Senior Member
|
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 4,840
Portugal
|
Edit: Per Wikipedia, the A-10C uses the AN/AAQ-28(V)4 LITENING AT pod. The F/A-18C uses the AN/AAS-38 "Nitehawk" pod. Basic concept is the same so you can reuse the DCS A-10C FLIR software as a starting point. Further edit: Per Northrop Grumman, the Marine Corps F/A-18's use LITENING. My guess is we are getting an older USN F/A-18C with the Nitehawk. The US Navy uses the ATFLIR Pod on their F/A-18Cs and the Canadians use the Sniper XR Pod on their Hornets (basically F/A-18As updated to a similar standard as the -C).
|
|
#4357018 - 05/12/17 04:29 PM
Re: DCS 1.5 / 2.0 Updates discussion thread
[Re: watermanpc]
|
Joined: Sep 2014
Posts: 797
leaf_on_the_wind
Member
|
Member
Joined: Sep 2014
Posts: 797
|
DCS: M-2000C by RAZBAM Now Available Steam We are pleased to announce that RAZBAM M-2000C is now available for purchase on Steam! http://store.steampowered.com/app/223750/DCS_World/Please note that the DCS: M-2000C, and all future DCS World DLC releases on Steam, will now use Steam Keys instead of Starforce keys. As such, these purchases cannot be activated on the DCS World e-Shop version. Previous purchases will not be affected.
Ferengi Rule of acquisition #1 Once you have their money ... never give it back.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Exodus
by RedOneAlpha. 04/18/24 05:46 PM
|
|
|
|
|