Oh

MY

GOD!!!





Really ED?





Please somebody explain to me why I need to map my pitch/yaw/roll/thrust three different times? What's the use for the General axis commands if it doesn't overwrite other aircraft-specific mappings? And after all these years, ED still maps EVERYTHING to every input device.

There is absolutely no need for this. Even for the simmer who flies 5 aircraft, I don't think he'll be swapping around his pitch/yaw/roll/thrust axes! His toe brakes for one aircraft will most likely be the same for the other aircraft! His speedbrake switch will most likely be the same too! Why not just have ONE setup for all aircraft then have aircraft-specific overrides? Oh joy!

And why is the Su-25T cockpit full of low-res images?

I've always found this strange as well. Would much rather set up a general axis and only set up AC specific if needed...

If this provides different curves, for the various axes, this might may reflect the differences in the flight models of the planes and the relative sizes of the control surfaces.

I would have thought the specific plane setup would supersede the general settings, rather than the other way around.

The reason is, at least in part, because ED has never enforced any consistency between the controls from the various vendors. ED just lets each team do whatever they want because it is easier for them, somehow.

I'm not even complaining about avionics-related stuff yet. This is just pitch/yaw/roll/thrust, something EVERY aircraft has by default, yet I have to map each one for each aircraft?




Isn't that what I said?

I don't fly ww2 yet, but I intend to use a different joystick for ww2 planes (KG13) than for modern planes (warthog).
I hope dcs let me do it with this way of handling flight controllers.

Even if it's a hassle for some, it's quite minor against some other flaws of the game.

Some people use different throttle quadrants for different aircraft and collective controls for helos.

Some people might use a stick with throttle together with a separate throttle, what axis to use then for the throttle, etc. It's rather complex to come up with a best guess for the axis assignments.

See, I can understand different profiles for different joysticks, so one for your WH and one for KG13.... but one WH and needing different profiles for each aircraft? Really?



And is that population of ED's customer base significant enough to justify this stupid implementation? Or are you just looking for a reason to justify this stupid implementation?



Yes of course! So let's go ahead and map pitch/yaw/roll/thrust on the joystick, on the throttle, and on the rudder! Genius!!

The rest is rather minor but this is the most annoying thing that DCS has ever done with controls. I have a trim wheel with only one axis and no buttons and it still gets stuff mapped to it that it cannot even do.

but ..... but .. why would you not want to have pitch for your aircraft assigned to .... left toe brake .. makes perfect sense to me

HOW DARE YOU COMPLAIN!!! It's rather complex to come up with a best guess for the axis assignments!! How is ED supposed to know what to default-assign to a trim wheel?!!?!!? Try making sense, man!!!



Yes, and map rudder controls to the left throttle lever.

I never understood the "general" control context. What does it do? What is it for. A cascading fallback system would be useful if not a source for more confusion and frustration. You'd have to be able to define a "no input" option distinct from a blank square to block the general filtering through when desired. I don't think it works that way though. Maybe it applies the general controls only once on new module install?

Auto-binding axes is poor behavior on the part of DCS. It only helps those users with a single joystick device that can't be asked to spend 60 seconds in the controls screen. For everyone else it creates more work than not binding anything at all.

Nevermind. You are right. A dozen aircraft times ten seconds to clear the assignments is no big deal. I will, most likely, live long enough not to miss those two minutes.

See? You can easily fix ED's fkups yourself! Why ask ED to fix them for you? They're busy over there trying to figure out how A-A radar works, that's groundbreaking technology nobody's ever, EVER done before. Just you wait when they crack A-G radar too! People everywhere will rejoice! Look at what they're spending their time on now --- SKINS!! Only ED can do skins! We should be thankful they're doing this for us or we won't have any other sim to fly! What are we all going to complain about then?!!?!!?

Besides, you might want to map that trim wheel to trim, but another pilot may want to use it to navigate the radio menus! Much complex! So wow! Very future!!

I have to disagree with ICE now, i dont like many thing in dcs but what im see this far about coming A/A model it really is light years more complex than any sim out there for now. And modern fighters is all electronic warfare for me , so im happy to get realistic radar model. Even if it takes time.


And im finally overall happy with dcs (never belived that i would be) , im now played in dynamic caucasus Mp PVP server , and its really awesome. Helo guys transport troops to capture objectives, in same time when i give them air support in my cas aircraft and then there is our fighter pilots flying CAP , and all this runs 24/7 server , supply system , limited resouces, limited lives. Finally someone made living battlefield in dcs. Unit count is over 4xxx thousand for now. And it runs fine even in VR

And its far from AIR quake

There is ewr sam networks , human GCI etc..

Sure, you're happy with DCS, but you've not really given any reasons why.


First part -- what are you saying? Not sure I understand.

Second part -- yes, things take time. But 4-5 years down the line and they're STILL working on A-A radar and not all modes present? C'mon. I'd like to get a realistic radar model, but I'd also like to get it in a realistic time frame. How long are YOU willing to wait?



Citing something the COMMUNITY works hard for to cover ED's shortcomings is hardly a testament to any competency on the part of ED.

Who coded the helo to do what they do? Who scripted in the CAP flights? Who scripted in the supply system? Who made the battlefield a "living" environment? ED? I hardly think so

As to being AIR quake, that's a server limitation. Open up another one and AIR quake is totally possible, so again, is that ED's work or that of the community?

Do not confuse dissatisfaction for ED's performance with the capabilities of the DCS community.

OK Ice, you probably have more experience than I, so what other company (entertainment) have achieved your standards outside of the real military software?

OK maybe DCS boast or imply capabilities they havent been able to deliver, but before being too critical, what software is superior?

I'm happier to listen to deficiencies in comparison to other software than just complaints that no other software has achieved either!

Not trying to be sm*rt*ss here, just interested in your view of the alternatives!

I've read where some call ED incompetent, competent means they cant achieve a standard commonly achieved by others, OK, so what software is accomplishing what ED cant? One must also taken into consideration size of the company and their resources, not just the word of a one man marketing department, that gets 3rd parties to produce slick graphic promotional videos!
Yes, broken promises are annoying, aggravating and deceitful, such is marketing today! Is it not uncommon for companies to to deliver on their promises!

Hopefully, eventually the company will deliver, if not them, then who? Without dreams, dreams dont come true!

Why im happy :

DCS finally runs good ( big cities made fps dive (And VR it was really bad).

Now trees are useful (i like fly helos lot) they block vis/radar.

And big thing Number one: spotting targets in VR (and monitor) is 10xtimes better what it was. Finally can see where is fight / spot ground and air units etc.. ) all other things are useless if cant see #%&*$#



There is good Mp servers even now (yes not ED make those but anyway) , something more continous least.

No worries at all, mate. I welcome open questions

There are two things you need to understand:
1. ED is judged harshly because it's a commercial product. When you get people's money, expectations change. BMS can release updates according to their timeframe and fans cannot do anything about it; the BMS devs work on the project on their own time and share their work. In that situation, the community SHOULD be grateful as they can simply decide NOT to share their work and THEY (devs) will still be able to enjoy BMS but the community will not. DCS is different. They ask for money upfront but seem to have no rush and no direction in their development. Should the community be grateful? Maybe, but the exchange of money for goods changes that. A lot. Strictly speaking, the "gratitude" is expressed in terms of the money exchanged.

2. ED is a victim of ED's hype. ED cannot deliver what ED promises. Who sets the deadlines? ED. Who promises the features? ED. Who makes the software? ED. If ED can deliver on the hype and on a timeframe with slight delays, the situation would be different. Not being able to deliver, chronic delay issues, and the culture in ED forums all work against ED and really, it's all ED's doing.



My expectations for ED are different from my expectations of other sims. While BMS meets criteria ED does not, ED itself fails to meet it's own criteria. I left DCS not because BMS is better (although personally it is), I left DCS because I've had enough of DCS.



It does not matter if no other software is superior. You order and pay for a 8oz steak and get a porkchop. You complain to the manager. He says "before you get too critical, our next competitor serves a BBQ for that price, so we are superior to them." Will you then withold your complaint?

So what if FSX, BMS, P3D, ARMA, etc. had issues when they came out? Those are issues that FSX, BMS, P3D, ARMA, etc will have to deal with and it does not excuse ED for having issues as well. However, with those sims, they get better over time. ED does not seem to learn from their past, and instead get better and better at finding excuses. If they have not been able to deliver once or twice, sure, we can probably let that slide. If they have faltered during the initial phases, fine, we can call that teething pains. Once the issue becomes a chronic problem, well, you will see how things can then be different.



Did you pay money for slick graphic promotional videos? Or did you pay money for a good simulator?

Strictly speaking:
competent - having the necessary ability, knowledge, or skill to do something successfully
incompetent - not having or showing the necessary skills to do something successfully

It is not in relation to what others can or cannot do, it is in relation to what YOU can or cannot do. ED cannot even do what ED says it can do. Would you call that competent? After 4-5 years of supposed development, ED cannot even release the Hornet with an A-G radar. ED cannot even release it with a fully-functioning A-A radar. ED cannot even release it with the full suite of A-A armaments. Competent? If you can come up with a counter as to how this can be called anything other than incompetence, I'd like to hear it.



I'm not particularly well-versed with them, but the IL-2 BOS/BOM team was mentioned before. My main example is BMS as I'm more familiar with that. The BMS dev group is a group of people who develop the game in their spare time; they have OTHER jobs that pays their bills and BMS is a hobby for them which they release to the public for FREE. They've had to reverse-engineer everything, they have to work with the limitations of a late '90s code. There are a lot of things they cannot do due to hard-coded limitations. However, BMS updates FIXES the game, not break it. When they do release an update that unexpectedly breaks something else, as was the case in BMS 4.32 Update 4 IIRC, they quickly release another update that fixes that issue. This is a rare occurrence in BMS, but in ED, this is the norm.

In comparison, ED employs full-time development staff whose specific job is to develop the game. They have access to their own code and can re-write from the ground up should they so wish. They claim their code is also up-to-date, so no old 90's tech here. So why are there so many, many issues with DCS? Why do DCS patches break previously-working components in a regular manner? Why does a new campaign require a patch for the DCS software as well?



And so they get a pass because others are doing it as well? You are happy to pay 100% for 40-60% of a product? If that's the philosophy you live by, then go right ahead, I cannot convince you otherwise.



Yes, hopefully, they deliver in time for you to enjoy it, in a state that was promised to you when you paid for it. ED would probably get a pass if they were new at the game but they're not. ED would probably get a pass if, when the product arrives even late, it is something that blows everyone's socks away but it does not. They had a perfect opportunity with 2.5 release and blew it. ED would probably get more slack if they were honest and open but they are anything but.

I hope you're not holding your breath for anything ED promises to deliver.


Let's stop making excuses for ED based on other software's issues on release or claiming ED is doing something other software can't. The first bit is just muddying the waters and trying to shift the blame, the other is a blatant lie.

For you. Are you saying other people who complain about performance issues are lying? Are you saying THEY should be happy as well even with their problems because YOU are happy?

So the game runs good on your PC. Great! Go forth and enjoy. But to come here and try to negate/minimise other people's complaints because YOU don't have issues is just rubbing salt in a fellow simmer's wound.



Which doesn't seem to be reflected in fellow simmers who have VR.



That is a leaf in the DCS community's crown, not ED. The good MP servers are there despite ED's fumblings.