Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rate This Thread
Hop To
Page 8 of 10 1 2 6 7 8 9 10
#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 Offline
Veteran
- Ice  Offline
Veteran

Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 16,082
Philippines / North East UK
Originally Posted by xXNightEagleXx
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.

Originally Posted by xXNightEagleXx
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.

Originally Posted by xXNightEagleXx
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 Carlin

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?


- Ice
Inline advert (2nd and 3rd post)

#4354270 - 04/28/17 07:05 PM Re: DCS 1.5 / 2.0 Updates discussion thread [Re: KraziKanuK]  
Joined: Dec 2016
Posts: 27
Jetronic Offline
Junior Member
Jetronic  Offline
Junior Member

Joined: Dec 2016
Posts: 27
Originally Posted by KraziKanuK
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 Offline
Junior Member
GrimLeo  Offline
Junior Member

Joined: Jan 2011
Posts: 96
Originally Posted by - Ice
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 Offline
Veteran
- Ice  Offline
Veteran

Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 16,082
Philippines / North East UK
Originally Posted by GrimLeo
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?

Originally Posted by GrimLeo
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.

Originally Posted by GrimLeo
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 Offline
Junior Member
GrimLeo  Offline
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 Offline
Member
Nate  Offline
Member

Joined: May 2001
Posts: 1,943
Dublin, Ireland
Originally Posted by GrimLeo
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

#4354374 - 04/29/17 09:24 AM Re: DCS 1.5 / 2.0 Updates discussion thread [Re: Nate]  
Joined: Mar 2015
Posts: 322
Art_J Offline
Member
Art_J  Offline
Member

Joined: Mar 2015
Posts: 322
Warsaw, Poland
That wouldn't be a bad idea If You ask me. If they don't intend to develop their own DC functionality for whatever reason, they could at least tweak the engine and mission editor to be more compatible with 3rd party applications substituting the thing. That rough approach has been working in ROF/BOx reasonably well and there are enough talented guys in DCS community who would help. MBot is becoming "Pat-Wilson-of-DCS" and I'm sure he's not the only one with required skills.

#4354391 - 04/29/17 11:54 AM Re: DCS 1.5 / 2.0 Updates discussion thread [Re: watermanpc]  
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 3,871
Paradaz Offline
Senior Member
Paradaz  Offline
Senior Member

Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 3,871
UK
"Tweak the engine" at ED HQ to support a dynamic campaign would be a 7 year monumental task that breaks everything else. The engine would probably need a complete re-write due to the archaic Flanker implementation and is probably the cause of how many units/assets can ever be managed at any one time.


On the Eighth day God created Paratroopers and the Devil stood to attention.
#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 Offline
Veteran
- Ice  Offline
Veteran

Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 16,082
Philippines / North East UK
Originally Posted by Art_J
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?


Originally Posted by Art_J
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
#4354429 - 04/29/17 03:55 PM Re: DCS 1.5 / 2.0 Updates discussion thread [Re: watermanpc]  
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 161
Muggs Offline
Member
Muggs  Offline
Member

Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 161
UK
In the Normandy build the rotating beacon on the MI-8 is still able to penetrate the aircraft and shine through to surfaces it shouldn't be hitting. I thought we were getting a lighting update?

taxi light off https://postimg.org/image/mpywkgdqn/
taxi light on https://postimg.org/image/881pcgmfj/



Last edited by Muggs; 04/29/17 04:00 PM.
#4354432 - 04/29/17 04:06 PM Re: DCS 1.5 / 2.0 Updates discussion thread [Re: Muggs]  
Joined: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,029
cichlidfan Offline
Member
cichlidfan  Offline
Member

Joined: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,029
Woodbridge, VA, USA
Originally Posted by Muggs
In the Normandy build the rotating beacon on the MI-8 is still able to penetrate the aircraft and shine through to surfaces it shouldn't be hitting. I thought we were getting a lighting update?

taxi light off https://postimg.org/image/mpywkgdqn/
taxi light on https://postimg.org/image/881pcgmfj/




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: 161
Muggs Offline
Member
Muggs  Offline
Member

Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 161
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.

[Linked Image]

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 Offline
model citizen
Winfield  Offline
model citizen
Member

Joined: Apr 2014
Posts: 871
QLD
Originally Posted by cichlidfan
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 Offline
Veteran
- Ice  Offline
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
#4354712 - 05/01/17 11:43 AM Re: DCS 1.5 / 2.0 Updates discussion thread [Re: watermanpc]  
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 3,871
Paradaz Offline
Senior Member
Paradaz  Offline
Senior Member

Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 3,871
UK
You're peaking my interest with all the 'improved lighting' talk. Does the lighting automatically bring all the modules out of alpha/beta?.....I knew it was just something simple causing all these problems.


On the Eighth day God created Paratroopers and the Devil stood to attention.
#4354812 - 05/01/17 07:56 PM Re: DCS 1.5 / 2.0 Updates discussion thread [Re: watermanpc]  
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 158
skunk160 Offline
Member
skunk160  Offline
Member

Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 158
London UK/Colorado
FSX@war group announced they are working on a DC for FSX/P3D FSX@War free addon

That amused me


//FOXTWO Multi-Role ​Combat ​Pit Build http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=134745
#4355170 - 05/03/17 06:33 PM Re: DCS 1.5 / 2.0 Updates discussion thread [Re: watermanpc]  
Joined: Jun 2016
Posts: 207
bkthunder Offline
Member
bkthunder  Offline
Member

Joined: Jun 2016
Posts: 207
This thread is getting out of hand, where's Sickspawn?? biggrin

#4355274 - 05/04/17 10:25 AM Re: DCS 1.5 / 2.0 Updates discussion thread [Re: GrimLeo]  
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 4,831
ricnunes Offline
Senior Member
ricnunes  Offline
Senior Member

Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 4,831
Portugal
Originally Posted by GrimLeo


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: 795
leaf_on_the_wind Offline
Member
leaf_on_the_wind  Offline
Member

Joined: Sep 2014
Posts: 795
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.

#4357075 - 05/12/17 09:51 PM Re: DCS 1.5 / 2.0 Updates discussion thread [Re: leaf_on_the_wind]  
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 796
Staniol Offline
Member
Staniol  Offline
Member

Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 796
Hungary
Originally Posted by leaf_on_the_wind

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.


skyisfalling


Freedom of speech is our birth right, but the privilege of being heard needs to be gained.
Page 8 of 10 1 2 6 7 8 9 10

Moderated by  Force10, RacerGT 

Quick Search
Recent Articles
Support SimHQ

If you shop on Amazon use this Amazon link to support SimHQ
.
Social


Recent Topics
Justice for Maddie
by RossUK. 06/04/20 11:11 AM
Perhaps My Final Flight
by FishTaco. 06/04/20 02:59 AM
Blue Angel's will transition to the Rhino
by CyBerkut. 06/02/20 12:41 PM
The pancake chef...
by Mr_Blastman. 05/31/20 06:33 PM
DOSBox/MS-DOS6
by MarkG. 05/31/20 02:14 PM
Question for gun lovers
by Blade_RJ. 05/30/20 02:54 PM
The Last British Destroyer Commander of WWII
by F4UDash4. 05/30/20 12:43 PM
I'm down to one game.....
by PanzerMeyer. 05/29/20 02:19 PM
Copyright 1997-2016, SimHQ Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.6.0