The definition of 'competent' does not make a comparison to anyone or anything else....it is simply the showing of necessary skills to do something successfully. And this is where ED fail, not only that they make the same mistakes over and over again so aren't learning from these and continue to be completely unsuccessful.

You tell me me where they have been successful, and for every single bullet you make I'll provide 10 examples where they have completely failed.......have a look at the 'release' of 2.5 for a perfect example, and then have a look at every other release they have ever made. They are clearly incompetent.

Definition of INCOMPETENT

So how does one determine if something is done successfully or well without some sort of comparison? The comparison is implied.

Without a comparison, every task could be considered successful....not!

Really? So if ED state that the 'release' version of 2.5 will be made 1-2 weeks after the open beta phase, do you really need to compare that with another company to determine whether ED are successful or not? I'll give you a clue, they were unsuccessful because the 'release' version of 2.5 was riddled with bugs and problems and almost 2 months later they are still nowhere near. You seem to think that without a comparison then every task could be considered successful?........so you clearly think that 2.5 has been nothing short of a success? Please go ahead and describe your reasons!

Do you need to be able to make a comparison to anyone else to determine whether software is 'modular' if the core game needs patching everytime something gets added?

Do you need to compare other companies to determine whether the breakout of DCS 2.0 into 2 separate dev streams is a good idea, just so they have something to release with limited functionality.

I could go on......

If I were to make comparisons of ED with other software companies it would be even more embarrassing on EDs part. They are incompetent in their core work, unable to integrate and test properly and unable to meet their own projected dates (and have been for over 10 years)....if you can think of a better definition than 'incompetent' then I'm all ears.

Sorry, I concede, I cant help you.

Well, we've explained our side. I'd love to hear your side as to how you can say ED is competent, with or without comparison to others.


Let me put it this way. You cook a steak. You burned the hell out of it, the outside is literally charcoal. But since there is nothing else to compare to as far as *good cooked steaks* are concerned, would you consider your burned-to-hell steak successful? In the presence of absolute vacuum, probably. So yes, the comparison is implied. Yes, there has to be a *good cooked steak* as baseline with which to compare YOUR cooking attempt.

So now let us operate under the idea that we know what a *good cooked steak* should look like. Also, there are now 5 of you who are cooking steaks, all aiming for that baseline. All of you burned your steaks to a crisp, but yours is the least burned. Would you call yourself competent at that point since although you failed, yours was the least crappy of the 5 steaks?



The point I'm making is this --- do not compare ED's release to others. We know what a successful release is. We know what a good product is. Compare ED to that. Heck, compare ED's release to ED's own promises and show me where you can call them competent.

I like software that works and promises that are kept too, but I dont rely on promises and hype, that's why I seldom buy, no! not seldom never buy, software until it has time to age, like about 3-4 years.

I only own one DCS clickable cockpit SIM, the A10-C and the way I use it, I have no issues at all........your mileage my vary.

So you are basing EDs success and competence on a single module and the way you utilise it? How on earth are you trying to justify (and defend) EDs overall ability based on that?

My milage and opinions are based on a lot more content and associated disappointment.

The thing is DCS A10C was released in a very good state. Not perfect, but it was very good even during Beta stage. Unfortunately, ED seems to have dropped the ball since then. Hence the current outrage

I wonder if you were going to present your side regarding how ED can be considered competent? Or were you merely asking us to show you how ED is incompetent?

My understanding was the A10 software was developed for training real military pilots, (especially the avionics), but in the contract they reserved the right to make a simulator to be marketed as a game/flight sim.

https://www.quora.com/How-realistic-is-the-flight-simulation-DCS-A-10C-Warthog

If true, I suspect they are very competent, but these projects are huge and avionics complexity increases with each succeeding generation, in the case of more recent aircraft, they probably dont have access to the technical spec, they may have gotten for A10-C, so they may have to make it up as they go.... memorable words


I will not make any attempt to address your grievances, as I have no first hand experience with them!

The technical spec of aircraft in part, is irrelevant.....especially when ED cannot deliver on time, cannot integrate properly, cannot test properly and cannot provide software, patches and releases without major bugs being present that stop or hinder the community from actually playing it in the first place.

You should take the WAGs job, you'd be great!

No-one could possibly do a worse job than Wags....anyone else would have been fired for gross incompetence years ago.

You will notice that none of us are complaining about the A10C and none of us are complaining about ED of 8 years ago

The fact that they did great work in the Hog only serves as stark contrast to their own performance now. I would also like to clarify that there is no question about the talents of the people working for ED, but what good is a solid hull and a sturdy mast if the captain decides to run the ship into rocks?



You may not, but remind me again why you've not bought any new modules?


P-51 - Sept 2012
Combined Arms - Dec 2012
Huey - April 2013
FC3 - April 2013
Mi-8 - Sept 2013
Fw 190 - Aug 2014
MiG-21 - Sept 2014
Bf 109 - Dec 2014

That's quite a few modules that has time to age 3-4 years, are you picking any of them up? Or have you listed to other people's grievances?



I honestly thought you were here for a discussion, mate. Seems like I was wrong and you're just here to troll.

I prefer more sophisticated electronics of modern planes, I do have FC3 but that's not interactive cockpit and therefore I dont fly it much. (Dont have any issues with it either)

Troll! Yikes!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I'm not here to troll, we just have different experiences, and different attitudes regarding the purchase and expectations of new software.

I suspect there can be no discussion as you feel burned, I can understand your apparent bitterness, and possible frustration......the exact reason I dont buy newly released software.

You used to have a really good attitude, but lately, at least in this forum seem quite bitter....too bad!

Your positive, comments and assistance have been appreciated by many, me included.

Clearly we have different experiences and different attitudes. Yours are based on one aircraft module dating back to 2010, our are based on the full fleet of available modules, terrains and let-downs from 2008 to present.

You ask a question, you get a reply, but you do not answer questions on that reply post to you. The discussion is one-sided, and all you come back with is snide remarks. You don't acknowledge any points presented and instead move the goalpost all of a sudden.

Burned? Or are you making a strawman? You don't have to be burned by ED to acknowledge their incompetence which you have failed to either acknowledge or provide proof of the contrary. Again, a one-sided discussion. Trolling.



And you are not the first one to shift the discussion from ED to a personal attack at the poster. I had a bit of respect for you from our previous interaction but as you've chosen to go down the way of the troll.... too bad!

The narrow view is very funny.

DCS runs great in my system therefore it is great and all others who are complaining are liars!
I only have one module and runs great therefore DCS knows what they're doing and all other who are complaining are bitter, burned customers!
I am having so much fun in this MP server and there are a lot of scripted stuff that makes the theatre come alive therefore DCS is awesome because this theatre was like this out of the box!

My 1st sentence was an observation, or my interpretation of what you have been saying, not a criticism. Trolling is your interpretation of what was said certainly not my intention.
My 2nd sentence certainly couldnt be construed as trolling!!

From Wilipedia:


How can I discuss, what I havent experienced? You want me to agree with you, based only on what you say......whats the point? I have no problem with seeing things from a different perspective, you dont have to agree with me, that's OK, but dont expect me to agree with you, we dont have to agree! Doesnt mean I feel the necessity to bash, everything you say to a pulp! I expect the same courtesy from you!

This is a personal attack? Pull up your pants man!

I agree with this poster