homepage

Campaign after Campaign - ED's new focus

Posted By: Paradaz

Campaign after Campaign - ED's new focus - 03/18/16 03:55 PM

Originally Posted By: Paradaz"

Dated November 7th 2015

My own thoughts are also that mission packs and/or a half-way house DC would also see more profit for ED as they could push them out on per-airframe basis......as a business an easy profit has to be in their thoughts whether we, as customers like it or not


Originally Posted By: "Paradaz"

Dated January 16, 2016

Whilst I understand that different people/skillsets/resources won't always be employed on the same areas of work I also have reservations about the new campaign published in the newsletter.

I said a while ago in another post that mini campaigns would be a very easy and profitable money-spinner for ED and I hope it's not taking away the focus from all the other unfinished work that won't necessarily generate more funds on release.

If we see more and more of these payware campaigns being pushed out without any real movement on the larger 'DCS World' then I guess I'll have my answer.



I guess I have my answer, so it seems the latest newsletter which I just received is promoting yet another new campaign....and only a new campaign. A new DCS World update that features nothing other than support for a new payware campaign? How's about putting more effort into the unfinished content where customer funds have returned nothing more than the beta status? Campaigns may be good....however not at the expense of the focus that is required for DCS World.

I knew a quick profit would be a head turner.....so this looks to be yet another direction change for ED. I'm sure we'll be seeing campaign after campaign and the associated 'updates' that also promote the bundle sales too. I suppose it negates any requirement for a dynamic campaign!

How's about getting the missions into the Nevada branch for starters or is that at the back of the queue because no funds are generated?

I get closer and closer to giving up on this mess every month. Such a shame because the potential is huge and will probably never be realised.
Posted By: SkateZilla

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 03/18/16 04:33 PM

Suggest you read changelogs and such before assuming each patch is only campaign support.

The last 2 patches have added Significant fixes and stuff to the F-86 and MiG-15 at the very least.

Not counting the plethora of fixes and tuning to the M2000C,

You are seeing what you want to see, and ignoring everything else to validate your assumption.
Posted By: amnwrx

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 03/18/16 04:40 PM

Mig-15 came out of beta last week. Also this campaign isn't new, I've owned it for over a year, purchased directly from the creator. Seems to align with what ED have said about selling 3rd party campaigns directly through their store, not much of a surprise.

Even though the weekly updates are great, I am still anxiously waiting "the merger"
Posted By: Paradaz

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 03/18/16 05:11 PM

Originally Posted By: SkateZilla
Suggest you read changelogs and such before assuming each patch is only campaign support.

The last 2 patches have added Significant fixes and stuff to the F-86 and MiG-15 at the very least.

Not counting the plethora of fixes and tuning to the M2000C,

You are seeing what you want to see, and ignoring everything else to validate your assumption.



As stated, I'm going off the newsletter that I just received; of which there is absolutely no news of ANYTHING other than release of a 'new' campaign. Considering this is a newsletter, and an ideal opportunity to inform customers of progress - how about they actually include some valid information in them? It's not a case of seeing what I want to see....it's a case of seeing what ED obviously want their customers to see.....in this example it's yet more payware!

How come some newsletters details progress and updates, yet some newsletters include nothing other than what they're selling at any particular moment in time. Sounds like you need to whinge at your employers if you want customers to see the excellent progress, updates, fine-tuning and fixes you claim they are making.



"DCS World 1.5.3 Update 2

Also on 18 March 2016, we will release the second update to version 1.5.3 of DCS World. Please note 1.5.3 Update 2 is the support for the new A-10C: BFT campaign"


Due to ED continually announcing/releasing content whilst many other products are still in beta I'm not entertaining the M2000C or any other beta product from this point on (that's ED's problem that so many people are now taking this stance due to the way they have gone about their business so far), so as good as it looks the 'fixes and tuning' are completely irrelevant for me and especially so if they are tucked away in changelogs. If the changelogs are only kept on the ED forums, then that will be another reason why I and many people won't see them.

Final point in reply to your post. You mention the F86, Mig15 and Mirage, yet these are all 3rd parties......perhaps ED aren't reporting progress because it isn't their progress to publish....what progress are ED making with DCS World for example?...There is absolutely no mention of anything in their latest newsletter and I know for a fact these newsletters have previously included this! You wonder why people like me make these posts? - how about ED create some consistency and sort out their communication.....as far as I'm aware the only progress ED has made in the week or so has been a single payware campaign and the previous newsletter detailed 3rd party module improvements and very little about DCS World too.
Posted By: SkateZilla

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 03/18/16 05:48 PM

ok so now you're complaining about the newsletter format?


The link to the changelog is also in the news letter less than 3 lines from the line you quoted.

ED is working on fixing bugs with 1.5 and 2.0 and eventually merging them when Caucuasus is finished being converted to T4.

You expect a major announcement of some thing new every week?
Posted By: SkateZilla

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 03/18/16 06:40 PM

This is MapleFlags Campaign, not EDs.
Posted By: Paradaz

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 03/18/16 06:58 PM

In your rush to defend ED you're obviously missing the point completely (as expected). The thread title and the first post give it away.

Are you now insinuating that a 3rd party campaign offers no monetary gain to ED? My concern is quite simple, and quite obviously geared around quick wins, quick profits that take some focus away from the progress in areas that really need it.

We're still effectively discussing (or arguing in your case) about DCS content that still remains in beta whilst new content is continually produced. I've no doubt that an update in a few months time will probably make this latest campaign unworkable and then we can await another few months whilst that is fixed because ED continue to stumble from one bit of work to the next without actually planning something with any real logic or roadmap behind it.

Let's ignore 3rd party module progress for now, that's 3rd party business....what's the latest on DCS World, what about the 1.5/2.0 merge, where are the Nevada missions, where is the ED progress? Is there nothing to put in the newsletter?....is the 'new' campaign just filler because there is no real news?

If you actually look at the change-log from the latest newsletter, this is the only valid news for DCS:

Game will be able re-save older mission files correctly
MP. Double ejecting of net-phantom pilot is eliminated


There is next to nothing in the previous week, the week before that was a spring sale....get my point? Probably not. Maybe the team are busy with new campaigns!

Posted By: SkateZilla

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 03/18/16 07:14 PM

Maybe the team is busy working on:
Gwneral bugs in 1.5/2.0,
Converting Caucasus to T4,
Finalizing F-86F,
BST F-5E,
NTTR Debuging,
SoH Map,
DX11 Effects revamps,
F-18C Flight Model and Avionics,
Spitfire Development,
MiG-29 PFM and External Model Revamp,
Su-33 PFM,
NTTR Missions,
ATC Revamp,
Among the other things in 1.5/2.0

Im sorry if each and every Dev in EDs office sldoesnt Give a personalized blurb every week of their progress.

The News letters have been anmouncimg the New Comtent, regardless of 1st / 3rd Party, or Content type, you cant fault them for wanting to advertise for themselves or 3rd Parties.
Posted By: Paradaz

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 03/18/16 07:35 PM

That's probably the reason why progress is so slow then.

Too many concurrent projects, too little resources, too many changes without proper planning and attempting to introduce too many new platforms in a rush to generate funds.

It's almost ridiculous to think that in 2008 we had an unfinished Black Shark in an unfinished Caucasus.

8 years later in 2016 we have even more unfinished platforms in an unfinished Caucasus and absolutely no idea when its going to be ready - yet ED's newsletters are featuring new campaigns!!!!!!

Yet you still can't see the problem or the concern lol. I think you've been involved with ED for far too long!

You're involved with AMD testing?......even though they've had their problems, if they handled their planning and development like ED they'd have been laughed off planet Earth long before now.
Posted By: SkateZilla

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 03/18/16 07:43 PM

you are the most critical of critics.

2008 vs now is completely different.

Caucasus and KA50 were feature complete long ago,

Caucasus 2.0 is an entirely different scenario.

The engine has moved from DX9 to DX11,
Changes and conversions of IP were expected.

Its amusing how you pick and draw straws though. Good Job.
Posted By: SkateZilla

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 03/18/16 07:46 PM

And you can leave my status with ED, AMD, Microsoft and any others I do work for out of your counter analysis,

It has nothing to do with my opinions or views and frankly Im just as tired of repeating that as you are tired of whining about ED.
Posted By: Paradaz

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 03/18/16 08:10 PM

To answer all your points above in a single reply....

If ED expected changes and conversions in IP as you allude to then it demonstrates well beyond reasonable doubt just how utterly incompetent they are in their planning.

I'll absolutely continue to make a comparison of ED with any company I choose to because its just another example of how you and many others (for whatever reason) choose to blindly ignore, refute or acknowledge how incompetent they have become whilst seemingly haven't learned from a single mistake they have made.

It's bizarre that no other company would ever be given the same amount of slack....whilst passionate about flight sims it's something I've never comprehended.
Posted By: SkateZilla

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 03/18/16 08:35 PM

1. You need to re read what you are saying,Theres gonna be changes when you evolve an Engine From One Generation to the Next.

Theres no such thing as a completely future proof IP.


2. My Affiliations are not part of your continued analysis and again, have nothing to do with you, ao you'd be wise to drop that subject, as I am tired of seeing my status posted more than the Walking dead Carl Memes.

Im not ignoring jack diddly, Im just not fixiated on posting only the negative aspects.

FIND. A.. DIFFERENT... ANGLE.
Posted By: Cajun

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 03/18/16 08:54 PM

Mapleflag has great missions. Well worth the money.
Posted By: Winfield

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 03/18/16 11:52 PM

Originally Posted By: SkateZilla
Suggest you read changelogs and such before assuming each patch is only campaign support.

The last 2 patches have added Significant fixes and stuff to the F-86 and MiG-15 at the very least.

Not counting the plethora of fixes and tuning to the M2000C,

You are seeing what you want to see, and ignoring everything else to validate your assumption.


Whilst on the subject of patches, newsletters and progress.....

DCS Hawk T1 by VEAO
Autostart and Autostop commands now working

*From the last newsletter

(Yet the day the patch was released "You don't get higher up the chain at VEAO" posted the rotating beacon was not turning off during the autostart sequence and will fixed in the next patch....One can only imagine that even the ED testers themselves have given up on actually testing the hawk otherwise it would have been picked up before the patch was released, not the day it was released.

Yep....That's progress, and nothing from them in this latest change log, not even a rotating beacon fix which consumers were told would be fixed this patch by none other than "You don't get higher up the chain at VEAO"

As far as campaigns go, just more media hype to sell a product. Does the reviewer get paid by ED for his write ups on Mudspike? Maple flag campaigns.....i'd rather pay for a campaign by Snoopy and the 476th Virtual Fighter Group. Notice it's mostly only the junior members over at ED who have the maple flag emblems in their sigs......anyone one with some sense would rather pay for something that is entertaining, not just for a dodgy sig emblem. So what are people really paying for? the campaign or crappy sig emblem?

I will however support campaigns that put together by the Russians, KA-50 campaigns that came with the bird were probably the best so far, plus the original A-10C campaign, the purchased one didn't really do much for me other than the female voice over.
Posted By: Paradaz

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 03/19/16 02:12 AM

Originally Posted By: SkateZilla
1. You need to re read what you are saying,Theres gonna be changes when you evolve an Engine From One Generation to the Next.

Theres no such thing as a completely future proof IP.


2. My Affiliations are not part of your continued analysis and again, have nothing to do with you, ao you'd be wise to drop that subject, as I am tired of seeing my status posted more than the Walking dead Carl Memes.

Im not ignoring jack diddly, Im just not fixiated on posting only the negative aspects.

FIND. A.. DIFFERENT... ANGLE.


1. Of course there will be changes, but you'd think that at the very least ED would have some sort of idea with regards their estimations, have a process to work to and wouldn't have YEARS of delays.

2. I don't care for your affiliations one iota. Apart from me mentioning one which is right next to your username, you still felt the need to mention two others in your reply. There's no need for you to play the victim card yet again, my comparison is there purely to show how you and other people choose to ignore ED's shortcomings when other companies would get absolutely slated for it.

I recall some of your posts for example lamenting EA/DICE for the mess that was BF4.. .a game that was fixed within a few months. Yet DCS is delayed, bugged, has unfinished modules, P2P clients that are unusable and aircraft that can't even be launched for periods of time elapsing over many years however somehow that's perfectly fine and people jump to the defence at every opportunity. No logic whatsoever.
Posted By: Remon

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 03/19/16 02:40 AM

Originally Posted By: Paradaz

As stated, I'm going off the newsletter that I just received; of which there is absolutely no news of ANYTHING other than release of a 'new' campaign.



"DCS World 1.5.3 Update 2

Also on 18 March 2016, we will release the second update to version 1.5.3 of DCS World. Please note 1.5.3 Update 2 is the support for the new A-10C: BFT campaign."

Plus, it mentions the bundle deals. Also, newsletter. A letter with news. The release of the campaign is news, you like it or not. It's not called whatever-news-Paradaz-deems-worthy-letter.

Posted By: SkateZilla

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 03/19/16 03:25 AM

For the Record, BF4 was NOT fixed in months.
Posted By: Paradaz

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 03/19/16 05:59 AM

Originally Posted By: SkateZilla
For the Record, BF4 was NOT fixed in months.


For the record and given your association with ED as a tester, I won't use your definition of when something is 'fixed' or not within a specific timeframe. smile
Posted By: Winfield

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 03/19/16 08:16 AM

I think I'll wait for the 476TH Fighter Group to post whether the maple flag missions are worth purchasing or not. This "new" campaign is years old for the A-10C.

Did Sabre actually liase with anyone who is in the know before his work was produced or did he just piss in the wind and hope for the best? If it's the latter.....his fooled many, even ED
Posted By: Sobek

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 03/19/16 09:29 AM

Originally Posted By: Paradaz
That's probably the reason why progress is so slow then.

Too many concurrent projects, too little resources, too many changes without proper planning and attempting to introduce too many new platforms in a rush to generate funds.


You complain about ED having too little ressources in a thread that you solely created to fault them for finding ways to generate more revenue? Where do you think that revenue goes (considering that the number of projects that ED work on is continuously growing)? Either the logic train doesn't halt at your station or you are being seriously disingenuous here.
Posted By: Paradaz

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 03/19/16 09:34 AM

Nope. I created the thread for discussion as to whether people think that ED are now starting to focus on quick-profit campaigns at the expense of DCS progress.

If you're insinuating that ED need to generate more revenue just to continue development then it's just another example of them taking too many concurrent projects on and not having accurate estimates as part of their planning in the first place.

Posted By: mrskortch

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 03/19/16 10:57 AM

I'm not sure how much effort it takes on ED's part to integrate a campaign made by some guy into the game. Especially if the campaign has been around for a few years and was sold on his own website in that time. If anything it just makes me question if this is the new norm for campaigns. Instead of releasing a free campaign to the community someone decides to go to ED and make it payware instead. It certainly has made a few people interested in making campaigns all a sudden.
Posted By: SkateZilla

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 03/19/16 12:43 PM

Originally Posted By: Paradaz
Originally Posted By: SkateZilla
For the Record, BF4 was NOT fixed in months.


For the record and given your association with ED as a tester, I won't use your definition of when something is 'fixed' or not within a specific timeframe. smile


Funny you're complaining about Campaigns in Quick Profits, then you use BF4 as a Comparative Example...

When BF3 and BF4 are both Desgined for DLC and Quick Profits... lol

If ED Wanted Quick Profits, they'd be Selling Engine and Weapon Upgrade Packs, and Make it so you have to level up to unlock systems.

Want to use the A-10C TGP, oop, You Gotta be Level 45, if you dont wanna wait, you can purchase an expert pack.

Posted By: Winfield

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 03/19/16 12:45 PM

Originally Posted By: mrskortch
It certainly has made a few people interested in making campaigns all a sudden.


Maybe so, however what % or cut does ED take from selling user made campaigns that are integrated into official patches and releases? if it was actually worth it, yes more people would be coming forward. Even at 50% each way or $5 bucks per sale is it really worth it?

"You don't get higher up the chain at VEAO" boasted 10's of thousands of hawk sales where as I didn't think it could be any more than 3 - 5 thousand. However if what "up the chain" said holds any merit, than an ED endorsed user made campaign at say 50% each way based on a hypothetical 10,000 campaign sales would equate to $50,000 each way.

My guess is, if 10's of thousands of people have purchased the hawk, Then 100's of thousands must have purchased the A-10C, and if that is anything to go off, then a combined 10's of millions must have purchased the A-10C, KA-50 and other aircraft officially endorsed by ED and their partner BST. Given that data, If building a campaign and proposing it ED to be officially endorsed, We would see 1,000 000 to 5,000 000 consumers over at the ED forums boasting that they are building a campaign and looking to sell it through ED. However we don't do we? instead we see the release of a 3 year old DCS A-10C campaign revamped and repackaged as a "new" campaign for DCS.

Wouldn't we see either on here at SimHQ or over at the official DCS forums, hundreds of thousands of general users boasting of putting campaigns up for the public to comment on? It's taken how long for ED to realize Ranger79's campaigns that's been out for a year or so and is actually better than and more enjoyable than the recent officially endorsed DCS A-10C campaign. This makes me wonder and no doubt others who is the marketing manager at ED.

I take it people like my myself have done the math and realize that it would be a waste of time and energy unless of course you want to add to your "rep" and score a few more green squares over at ED HQ
Posted By: Eddie

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 03/19/16 12:58 PM

Originally Posted By: Winfield
I think I'll wait for the 476TH Fighter Group to post whether the maple flag missions are worth purchasing or not. This "new" campaign is years old for the A-10C.


You'll be waiting quite a while. We don't do single player, and most of us have never flown any DCS campaigns or standalone missions from ED or anyone else within the DCS "community". There are one or two more junior members who do, Recon being one example, but they do so on their own not under the umbrella of the 476th.
Posted By: Nate

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 03/19/16 12:58 PM

Originally Posted By: Paradaz
Nope. I created the thread for discussion as to whether people think that ED are now starting to focus on quick-profit campaigns at the expense of DCS progress.


Interesting that you chose a 3rd party campaign release to ask this question.

Nate
Posted By: Winfield

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 03/19/16 01:01 PM

Originally Posted By: Eddie
Originally Posted By: Winfield
I think I'll wait for the 476TH Fighter Group to post whether the maple flag missions are worth purchasing or not. This "new" campaign is years old for the A-10C.


You'll be waiting quite a while. We don't do single player, and most of us have never flown any DCS campaigns or standalone missions from ED or anyone else within the DCS "community". There are one or two more junior members who do, Recon being one example, but they do so on their own not under the umbrella of the 476th.


Fair call, so in other words....a complete waste of money really
Posted By: Paradaz

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 03/19/16 01:02 PM

Originally Posted By: Nate


Interesting that you chose a 3rd party campaign release to ask this question.

Nate


It's not that interesting because if you read the first post you'll see I questioned whether we'd suddenly start seeing a lot more campaigns back in November last year. Lo and behold.
Posted By: Nate

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 03/19/16 01:09 PM

That would make sense if was a campaign by ED.

Nate
Posted By: Paradaz

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 03/19/16 01:15 PM

You'll get the goalposts moved if you try hard enough, read the thread and try to ignore the latest newsletter.

Also on 18 March 2016, we will release the second update to version 1.5.3 of DCS World. Please note 1.5.3 Update 2 is the support for the new A-10C: BFT campaign
Posted By: Nate

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 03/19/16 01:28 PM

I see - and just how has this 3rd party campaign release affected DCS Progress then? Is there anything you can tell us that isn't conjecture on your part?

Nate
Posted By: Paradaz

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 03/19/16 01:41 PM

Originally Posted By: Nate
I see - and just how has this 3rd party campaign release affected DCS Progress then? Is there anything you can tell us that isn't conjecture on your part?

Nate


LOL, that old chestnut....... You haven't read the thread from the start yet - I recommend you do that first, so that you can put your opinion across when you put your thoughts/answers against questions posed rather than going on the defensive and trying to start the usual counter argument with your own set of silly questions.

I may also point you to the definition of a 'forum'. I know that ED aren't really aware of the purpose but SimHQ certainly are.
Posted By: LOF_Rugg

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 03/19/16 01:48 PM

The fact that there are still lots of bugs with the mission editor/ai behavior etc is this new content going to "work" correctly a year from now?

Maybe ED can focus on A/A next, cuz missiles have been borked for what, 4 years now?

Originally Posted By: Paradaz


I may also point you to the definition of a 'forum'. I know that ED aren't really aware of the purpose but SimHQ certainly are.

QFT
Posted By: Nate

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 03/19/16 01:49 PM

This question "Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus"?

Then I would have to say no.

Nate
Posted By: LOF_Rugg

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 03/19/16 01:53 PM

Saw in the latest update that we can now buy "training" missions. So they sell us a full fidelity a/c then they sell the training missions too.

Remember the good old days when we didn't get nickled and dimed to death? I know that in my business not doing this to my customers has actually increased my revenue.
Posted By: Nate

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 03/19/16 01:55 PM

Nope the A-10C module still comes with training missions. This is a 3rd party's campaign being sold.

Nate
Posted By: Nate

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 03/19/16 02:43 PM

I don't see how anything I've said is off topic? Now as to your questions (I think I have then all), I'll try to answer as best I can, since you asked so nicely.

EDIT:- Awww you deleted your post.

A new DCS World update that features nothing other than support for a new payware campaign?

No, a few important fixes too. I think there is a changelog somewhere for this update. EDIT: I've linked it below.

How's about getting the missions into the Nevada branch for starters or is that at the back of the queue because no funds are generated?

Honestly I've no idea as to how ED handles it's revenue. Nobody here does, so the above is manufactured speculation IMO. I do know however that work on Nevada branch continues.

Considering this is a newsletter, and an ideal opportunity to inform customers of progress - how about they actually include some valid information in them?

Can't really answer this one unless we define what constitutes valid/non-valid information. I suspect this would be different for each individual.

........what progress are ED making with DCS World for example?

Change logs are in the link below with updates to DCS world dated 18th,11th March, 17thFeb, 22nd Jan for 2016 and about 12 other changlogs for the period Sept-Dec 2015
http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?p=2707665#post2707665

You wonder why people like me make these posts?

I couldn't possible explain what motivates you - This may have been rhetorical

Are you now insinuating that a 3rd party campaign offers no monetary gain to ED?

Not directed to me, but I can't imagine they are not.

what's the latest on DCS World, what about the 1.5/2.0 merge, where are the Nevada missions, where is the ED progress?

Ok a few questions rolled into one, lets see....
Latest on DCS world is a bit broad in scope, but to be pedantic is actually the Newsletter that sparked the discussion.
The 1.5/2.0 merge is ongoing - not much else to say here really. It will be done when its done, it's not a cut and paste job.
Where are the Nevada missions - I don't know the time frame for these, these will mostly likely come with the Nevada release
Where is the ED progress - Hard to quantify this question, but if you go over the Changlogs linked above you'll see detailed past progress from last September onward.

Is there nothing to put in the newsletter?....is the 'new' campaign just filler because there is no real news?

Ok, 2 in 1. First one, probably not anything they felt like sharing. Second one, here we'll have to define what constitutes real news, again I've feeling that this will depend on the individual.

There is next to nothing in the previous week, the week before that was a spring sale....get my point?

I think I do. I guess the point you are making is that they don't keep you informed as often as you'd wish.

Nate
Posted By: Remon

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 03/19/16 02:57 PM

Originally Posted By: LOF_Rugg
Saw in the latest update that we can now buy "training" missions. So they sell us a full fidelity a/c then they sell the training missions too.

Remember the good old days when we didn't get nickled and dimed to death? I know that in my business not doing this to my customers has actually increased my revenue.

Posted By: Winfield

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 03/19/16 03:07 PM

Let's take a moment to align ourselves with the forum rules.

1.2 Forum members must treat others with respect and tolerance.

1.5 Threads and posts are to be on topic according to the forum section and thread title.

I don't want to see the admins remove posts and weild the ban hammer
Posted By: cichlidfan

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 03/19/16 03:12 PM

Originally Posted By: LOF_Rugg
Saw in the latest update that we can now buy "training" missions. So they sell us a full fidelity a/c then they sell the training missions too.


Didn't your A-10C come with training missions? Mine did. This is a qualification campaign. It actually does not contain 'training missions'. Perhaps you should take a closer look before commenting.
Posted By: Flogger23m

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 03/19/16 06:18 PM

I don't mind. It helps them get money. I don't have interest in most of them. If it means they can put out a lot of nice campaigns and in turn lower price of terrian or other content then that would be great. It seems like the KA-50 campaign (3rd party?) was the only bad one so far.
Posted By: LOF_Rugg

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 03/19/16 08:17 PM

Originally Posted By: cichlidfan
contain 'training missions'. Perhaps you should take a closer look before commenting.

That's how it initially appeared in the Newsletter. I watched the video later and you're correct. But go back and read the email update.

Perhaps you shouldn't get so upset, being that you're a (politically correct descriptor) ED supporter...........LOL
Posted By: heartc

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 03/21/16 11:20 AM

It is clear now why ED was "not able" to develope a dynamic campaign system in 20 years. They have no interest in it. Selling piece-meal scripted missions can serve as a source of continued income, or so they think.




Posted By: Schwalbe

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 03/21/16 02:45 PM

Have long realized that DC isn't good for business. Despite the global triumph of capitalism, this is a tiny one among those that remain unsolved:p
But depends, if leaning towards a bit mass market appeal likely not, but if the target market is SimHQ go-ers or... retro simmers in general why not a DC. The latter won't make as much I reckon.
Posted By: TankerWade

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 03/21/16 06:20 PM

Originally Posted By: Nate


A new DCS World update that features nothing other than support for a new payware campaign?

Where is my f-18?

How's about getting the missions into the Nevada branch for starters or is that at the back of the queue because no funds are generated?

And is it impacting the f-18?

Considering this is a newsletter, and an ideal opportunity to inform customers of progress - how about they actually include some valid information in them?

You know, like a valid description of the progress of the f-18?

........what progress are ED making with DCS World for example?

And specifically the f-18?

You wonder why people like me make these posts?

Where is my f-18?

Are you now insinuating that a 3rd party campaign offers no monetary gain to ED?

Are they going to release the f-18?

what's the latest on DCS World, what about the 1.5/2.0 merge, where are the Nevada missions, where is the ED progress?

Progress on the f-18?

Is there nothing to put in the newsletter?....is the 'new' campaign just filler because there is no real news?

News about the f-18?

There is next to nothing in the previous week, the week before that was a spring sale....get my point?

The point is that you want the f-18?

Nate



There I fixed that for you Nate...
Posted By: Clutch

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 03/21/16 11:49 PM

Originally Posted By: heartc
It is clear now why ED was "not able" to develope a dynamic campaign system in 20 years.


All conspiracies about ED's business model aside, I DO find it perplexing that no one (and I mean NO ONE) seems to have been able to develop a dynamic campaign that even comes close to the one that Microprose/Spectrum Holobyte produced for Falcon 4.0 in 1998.

Why is that? Even the "Third Party" dynamic campaigns and the such just fall way short.

Anyone have any ideas on why this is?
Posted By: LOF_Rugg

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 03/22/16 01:05 AM

Originally Posted By: Clutch


Anyone have any ideas on why this is?

Must be really difficult. My guess is that ED can't figure out how to.
Posted By: scrim

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 03/22/16 02:28 AM

Yeah, it's quite the strange thing that. On the one hand they insist on it being "broken", "rubbish", "crap", etc., but on the other hand they are completely unable to make anything comparable themselves...
Posted By: mrskortch

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 03/22/16 03:16 AM

Originally Posted By: Clutch

Why is that? Even the "Third Party" dynamic campaigns and the such just fall way short.

Anyone have any ideas on why this is?


1. ED prioritized a complex mission editor because its better suited for any defense contract use than a dynamic campaign would ever be. Instructors need to build a reliable scenario with a clear understanding of what could potentially happen and not a gameplay mechanism that generates content for the end user as a means to keep them interested.

2. The way Falcon 4 handles missions is quite a bit different than how ED does it with DCS. As a game it was built from the ground up with integrating into a DC in mind. So for the sake of argument a DC that uses the same sort of concepts found in the F4 campaigns would need ED to make some serious changes to the game in order for it to become a reality.

3. The DCS mission file format is an open format. And as we have seen there are community efforts to create dynamic campaigns either through the use of generating mission files or changing a live mission via the scripting engine. So its not something that is completely closed off and only ED can work toward.

One of the things that bugs me with any DC related discussion is that people tend to ignore the massive differences between DCS and F4 with regard to ground objects. The overall density of map objects is the huge difference. DCS maps have a crazy number of objects and road networks that exist on its maps. For instance the Black Sea map has a little over 26,000 powerlines on it, and its common for other object types to exist in the 1000s range. In terms of roads I wouldn't be shocked if the much smaller Nevada still has 100s of km more roads than any F4 map. It very well might be possible that the city of Tbilisi has more objects in it than the entire Korean theater map in F4 has. Then you have to translate what that means for AI and the overall difference between how the two games handle ground combat. Which to be honest I don't know a whole lot about. In my time playing F4 I never saw 2 ground armies square off in 3d, for DCS that is a different matter.

Originally Posted By: scrim
Yeah, it's quite the strange thing that. On the one hand they insist on it being "broken", "rubbish", "crap", etc., but on the other hand they are completely unable to make anything comparable themselves...


To be fair I don't think ED have ever come out saying that they are actively working on a dynamic campaign. If they did it would just be added to the list of long term projects that they have talked about and haven't quite become a reality yet. Which would cause much strife and anxiety over the progress of such a project on the forums. I understand the value that some people place on a dynamic campaign, but I'd rather see efforts put toward enhancing scripting engine functionality. In my eyes a DC is just a DC, but new scripting engine features is DC + a bunch of other stuff... Possibly even multiple DC code-bases to choose from.
Posted By: LOF_Rugg

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 03/22/16 03:57 AM

I defer to Mr Skortch. If anyone knows about the mission editor/game engine interface it's him.

Thanks for the reply.
Posted By: Apache600

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 03/22/16 06:31 AM

+1 mrskortch. Thank you for that explanation.
Posted By: Clutch

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 03/22/16 09:53 AM

Thanks Skortch, that makes a lot of sense.

I also think that (as far as it goes) the ease of modern multiplayer gives us all the tools (except for maybe time) to create a truly dynamic campaign for ourselves.

Clutch
Posted By: Schwalbe

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 03/22/16 11:12 AM

1. Name one Russian flight sim (there have been many now) that sports a DC?
Otoh name some western flight sims that sports one. There have been quite a few other than flacon4.0. Can you count to ten. There is also one in the works.
My personal thought, this is a "cultural" thing. It could be a bit hard for western ppl to understand, maybe.

2. DC doesn't make as much money. Tis easily understood. But DC would bring more loyal fans/customers I think yes.

PS. 3. Technical difficulties... pffft yeah right. It was done even in the early 90s, I think only the DCS community puts up a mind barrier like that, for a sim that builds entirely without "dynamic" in mind, sure, it would be extremely difficult to change direction!
Posted By: Winfield

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 03/22/16 02:07 PM

Originally Posted By: SkateZilla
you are the most critical of critics.

2008 vs now is completely different.

Caucasus and KA50 were feature complete long ago,

Caucasus 2.0 is an entirely different scenario.

The engine has moved from DX9 to DX11,
Changes and conversions of IP were expected.

Its amusing how you pick and draw straws though. Good Job.


the engine was already moved to DX11 back in 2012 no doubt earlier maybe 2010, We now have confirmation of a 3rd party releasing the AV-8 however many of us knew of this confirmation back in 2012.

1.5,2.0 or what ever you want to call it was released years ago....
never officially confirmed however it was released https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ZZGOZxM-nc is just 1 example

as for DC's, rather than copy and paste years old training missions into 1.5 or 2.0, ed have had many years to actually release a campaign of quality. Why should a user piece one together using a 4th party "mist" when ed who are supported by consumers have had yonks to actually produce something of quality?

Maple flag missions were made as far back as before 1.2.3, long before combined arms was on the arena. If ED can sell 1.5 maps as far back as 2010 it begs belief that they never employed a 3rd party to make a DC long before the years were wasted on Nevada 2.0 or caucus 1.5. Instead now we have bunch of dodgy dev's who couldn't organise a piss up in a brewery
Posted By: cdelucia

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 03/22/16 04:29 PM

"ED prioritized a complex mission editor because it's better suited for any defense contract use than a dynamic campaign would ever be."

The above is all that needs to be said. The consumer market (i.e.: you and I) comes second to the private/gov't contract market as far as ED is concerned. Oh, and they have no competition in the "hi-fi" modern aerial combat genre.

Been waiting for the F/A-18 for five+ years, and now they've broken SLI with 1.5/2.0 (well, for a good amount of nVidia users).

Hate to admit it but I forget who was working on an independent DC for DCS, but any word on progress?
Posted By: heartc

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 03/22/16 08:40 PM

The point is, as I've said again and again, a Dynamic campaign doesn't mean it has to be a carbon copy of Falcon 4's system! There were many approaches to Dynamic campaigns in previous flightsims, and while they all were different from each other, they all were a hell of a lot better than simply flying canned missions 1-20 that will be the same everytime except for random elements and have no deeper purpose.

To illustrate that to you, here is the deal: Since I got bored with the topic yesterday, I sat down and in 4 hours wrote a force / stockpile / supply logic in lua.

It works like that:

There are five types of assets to the enemy side (I only wrote logic for the enemy side yet):
1. Fighter force (16 planes)
2. Bomber force (8)
3. SAMs (8)
4. Factories (4)
5. Supply / repair trucks (50)

The first three assets have a replenish rate that varies with the number of operating factories. The more factories inactive, the lower the rate. If a factory is taken out, it will be repaired, with the repair rate depending on the number of supply trucks, which also have a replenish rate that again depends on the number of operating factories. The logic is tuned to and works in conjunction with the Random / Fast Mission Generator of DCS.

Since I'm still brand-new to programming and have no idea how to interface the program with DCS, it requires user input. You enter the number of destroyed assets in the mission debrief, and the program will calculate the max assets available to the enemy for the next mission. If the asset number descends below the number the Fast Mission Generator works with on Max Settings, the program will inform you about it, so that for the next mission the user knows how many of the assets he has to delete via the group menu in the next generated mission. "House rules" are that if you want to go after a factory, you have to select the biggest building that is nearest to the default waypoint 1 in the generated mission. Another house rule is that taking out a bridge nearest to waypoint 1 equals 10 truck kills. Since I also have no idea yet how to program a graphical user interface, the program runs in simple CMD.exe.

Now, for anyone more familiar with programming, or the DCS team itself, it would be child's play to interface the logic with DCS itself and register the asset losses directly from the mission debrief log and limit the number of max assets available automaticly for the next mission.

With or without that interface though, the logic results in meaning and purpose for the player when he flies the missions. He will select targets based on what is most appropriate for the current situation in a dynamic environment. It also has a save function when you leave the program (as in Rogue-like RPGs - saving is only available on leaving the program). It also provides much variation and opportunity for different mission profiles and even planes:
Do you want to take down the fighter force first? Go ahead, but be aware that their replenish rate will be high as long as factory production is still high. So, maybe go ahead and strike a factory first if the mission generator puts out a sensible position of waypoint 1 that offers that opportunity. Have taken down 1-2 factories? Keep an eye on their repair status and maybe go after trucks or a bridge the next mission. Get shot down by SAMs a lot while fighting the remaining fighter force? Fly a dedicated SEAD mission!

THAT is what a Dynamic campaign is about. To give purpose and (with the help of the random mission generator) variation to each mission, so that no mission is ever the same.

Here is the code:

Code:
-- Dynamic Campaign for DCS MiG21

local socket = require("socket")
math.randomseed (os.time())

-- Load Game function

repeat 
print ("Do you want to start a new game (n) or load (l) a previous game?")
start = io.read ()
until start == "l" or start == "n"

if start == "l" then
dofile ("dcsdce.lua")

else

-- New Game Stockpile

ef = 16
eb = 8
es = 8
efac = 4
etruck = 50

-- Factory and Supply truck efficiency

efaceff = 1
etruckeff = 1

end

repeat


-- Next Mission Brief

-- Intel

print ()
print ("INTEL")
print ()
print ("Enemy production is at "..(efaceff * 100).."%.")
print ("Their supply truck efficiency is at "..(etruckeff * 100).."%.")
print ("They have "..efac.." out of 4 factories operating.")
print ("Their factory repair rate is at "..(0.3 * etruckeff).." per day.")
print ("They have "..math.floor (ef).." fighters and "..math.floor (es).." SAMs left.")
print ()
if ef < 8 then

print ("For your next mission, the enemy fighter max is "..math.floor (ef).." .")

end

if eb < 6 then

print ("For your next mission, the enemy bomber max is "..math.floor (eb).." .")

end

if es < 6 then

print ("For your next mission, the enemy SAM max is "..math.floor (es).." .")

end
print ()
print "Go fly now and press Enter after your sortie."
io.read ()

-- Debrief

print "DEBRIEFING:"
print ()
print "How many fighters were shot down?"
efl = io.read ()
print "How many bombers were shot down?"
ebl = io.read ()
print "How many SAMs were destroyed?"
esl = io.read ()
print "How many factories were destroyed?"
efacl = io.read ()
print "How many trucks were destroyed?"
etruckl = io.read ()

if efl == "" then efl = 0
end
if ebl == "" then ebl = 0
end
if esl == "" then esl = 0
end
if efacl == "" then efacl = 0
end
if etruckl == "" then etruckl = 0
end

-- Supply truck efficiency

etruckeff = (etruck - etruckl) / 50

-- Number of Factories

efac = efac - efacl + 0.3 * etruckeff
if efac > 4 then efac = 4
end

-- Factory Efficiency

efaceff = efac / 4

-- Attrition and Reinforcements / New Stockpile

ef = ef - efl + 4 * efaceff 
if ef > 16 then ef = 16
end
eb = eb - ebl + 1 * efaceff
if eb > 8 then eb = 8
end
es = es - esl + 1 * efaceff
if es > 8 then es = 8
end
etruck = etruck - etruckl + 1 * efaceff
if etruck > 50 then etruck = 50
end


-- Continue Game

print ()
repeat 
print ("Do you want to sortie again? (y/n)")
sa = io.read ()
until sa == "y" or sa == "n"

until sa == "n"

-- Intel (Summary) before leaving
 
print ()
print ("Enemy production is at "..(efaceff * 100).."%.")
print ("Their supply truck efficiency is at "..(etruckeff * 100).."%.")
print ("They have "..efac.." out of 4 factories operating.")
print ("Their factory repair rate is at "..(0.3 * etruckeff).." per day.")
print ("They have "..math.floor (ef).." fighters and "..math.floor (es).." SAMs left.")
print ()

print "Press Enter to save your game."
io.read ()

-- Save Game function

savefile = io.open ("dcsdce.lua" , "w+")
savefile:write ("ef = "..ef.." eb = "..eb.." es = "..es.." efac = "..efac.." etruck = "..etruck.." efaceff = "..efaceff.." etruckeff = "..etruckeff.."")
savefile:close ()
print ()
print ("Your Campaign has been saved to 'dcsdce.lua'.")
io.read ()


Anyone who is interested in programming, go right ahead and improve it or use it as an inspiration and feel free to think about interfacing it or something similar with the DCS program and a GUI. It is just a bare bones program yet (as I said, I came up with it in just a few hours and I'm still new to programming) that serves as a learning opportunity for me and to illustrate the concept.

Anything that gives purpose and meaning to the missions you fly in a continued and dynamic context is better than just a string of scripted missions that are always the same and - at best - just "branch" into different paths, whose number depends on the time the mission designer put in to write some more scripted missions. Flight sims should not be RPGs with branching, scripted "story lines". Flightsims should be about conducting and / or participating in an air campaign that has certain strategic goals, in an environment that changes dynamically according to the performance of the player and / or the participating sides.

Best regards
heartc

P.S. The randomizer I put into there up at the top was just a preparatory measure. It doesn't serve a function yet, but you can picture how to easily randomize the initial stockpile for example to allow for randomized initial conditions for each new campaign. Also, in the header, it says "for MiG21", because I optimized it for a fast mover. You could easily adopt it though for low intensity CAS planes or easily fly the Mirage in it.





Posted By: Nate

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 03/22/16 08:48 PM

You should have a chat with MBot - he's working on a more fully featured Dynamic Campaign Engine for DCS, based on his Guardians of the Caucasus dynamic campaign.

http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=153020

Nate
Posted By: heartc

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 03/22/16 08:58 PM

Thanks Nate, I know about it. He's way above my pay grade though when it comes to programming still and I doubt there is much of anything I could assist him with. I hope his effort sees the light of day soon. Actually, I don't doubt it, since he already proved his ability with the MiG21 Dynamic Campaign. There is one great fear though I harbor for his effort: That ED, via their frequent patching - including changes to the Mission Editor - might screw up his campaign at a later point and render it unfunctional, unless he constantly keeps up with it. It happened before when someone (I think his nick was Doctor something) wrote a Dynamic campaign for Flaming Cliffs, which worked pretty awesome but was rendered totally unfunctional by ED changing the Mission Editor format from the LOMAC concept to the Black Shark concept.

I'm not saying his system won't be awesome, I believe it will totally rock once it's out. On the other hand though, my approach - albeit more out of neccessity than design, since as I said I have no idea yet about interfacing stuff - is totally independent of game changes, as long as there is a random mission generator. You can even adopt my system to other flightsims and sims in general that have any sort of random mission generation and allow editing of those missions. I wrote a similar program for the naval sim "Iron Clads" for example.

All the best,
heartc
Posted By: Nate

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 03/22/16 09:08 PM

That's interesting, I hadn't considered that the MG would be of much use to campaign makers other than to populate a mission. It is a novel approach. Independence of the mission editor does forgo use the in built supply/resource system though, but if it can be done independently, why not.

IMO as long as values/resources/attrition/results from one mission to the next can be carried through I'm happy. That IMO is the leap that needs to be made, I want the mission result to have an effect on the campaign.

Nate
Posted By: heartc

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 03/22/16 09:28 PM

Originally Posted By: Nate
I want the mission result to have an effect on the campaign.


Exactly. And not by spitting out different branches of scripted missions, but by changing the environment in terms of threat level / threat type / asset number for the next mission.

Of course, a system that would be integrated with the program (DCS) itself could - at one further step - do away with the total randomness of the random mission generator and instead track which specific targets at which specific locations were taken out. My program only tracks and limits the overall availability of enemy force for the next mission and tracks replenish rate of that overall force, but thus still giving incentive and requiring thought about what type of enemy asset to go after in your next mission and / or which is sensible to do according to what the random mission generator came up with.

Posted By: Sobek

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 03/22/16 09:41 PM

Originally Posted By: Winfield
the engine was already moved to DX11 back in 2012 no doubt earlier maybe 2010


With regard to anything DCS, no, it wasn't. 1.5 was the first version that ran on DX11.
Posted By: heartc

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 03/22/16 10:49 PM

BTW, when I think about Dynamic Campaigns, I have, besides others, this picture in mind:

https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=fli...amp;FORM=VRDGAR

And yeah, yeah, spare me the BS about "but that's the movies!". I know that that's the movies! But the point is that in real life, air missions have a purpose formulated after a specific goal with regards to the theater of war, to change that theater according to that goal. It might be stupid goals sent downlink from suits sitting in Washington, or sensible goals by two Mavericks in an Intruder, or somewhere in between. But either way, it is never a "sripted" mission with "scripted" threats that someone "scripted" for your enjoyment or frustration and that will always be the same when you refly the "campaign". It is a dynamic application of force into a dynamic environment.

I want the player to think about and figure out his next mission like those two guys did in that video clip. And by God, how similar is that to the experience you got with Tornado for example. "Take out that power plant? Yeah, but you gota go through all these SAMs that you haven't worked on yet in your previous missions. OK, but you can go really low, 200 feet AGL on auto or 100 on manual, come around those hills and then maybe LOFT those bombs into the target to avoid the AAA and be back down in the weeds in a sec. Can you do it? And at night?"

Stuff like that can be done again. They did it in 1993 with Tornado already. It only requires the will.

Besides, "Flight of the Intruder" was a friggin' awesome movie. Best mil aviation movie in my mind.
Posted By: heartc

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 03/22/16 11:08 PM

BTW 2, to give those of you who might have missed out on Tornado because of their young age or something an idea of how awesome this sim was, and to show you how much worth the argument of "It can't be done, it is teh hard. Only Falcon 4 did it, but failed because buggy." really is:

https://youtu.be/fwZUJLXPvBs?t=382
Posted By: nadal

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 03/23/16 02:44 AM

Like several people mentioned above, as Lomac wasnt designed with DC operation in mind, "Save and Adopt" type of DC wont work well imo....

On the other side, realtime ATO generation for AI pilot is already possible with current MIST engine, I think they just make 24/7 MP Dynamic Campaign first instead.
Posted By: Paradaz

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 03/23/16 07:47 AM

I personally don't think a DC provided by ED will ever happen. They seem to rely on revenue just to continue what they have started (not that any end dates are ever in sight to complete their modules).

For many people, a DC may mean that no further revenue is generated due to the provision of an ever-changing world and fans may be happy to get immersed whilst using their favourite airframe without venturing back to the ED store to purchase the next beta.

These mini campaigns are all too easy to throw out with minimal effort/resources in comparison to the 'World' in order to mmake a quick profit.

I just hope this mechanism doesn't move the focus away from progressing the unfinished content which won't generate more funds into these quick money spinners. Why continue development for no return if quick profits can be made with throw away campaigns!

If ED are counting on revenue from these campaigns just to progress the existing work its simply another example of incompetent planning. Business acumen will always say you don't even start something that isn't profitable and you can't really rely on having to generate more funds with a mechanism that has no guarantee of doing so.

No-one can deny (although the same old faces will try) that ED haven't changed direction many times already.....I just hope this isn't another one. Lets be honest, in 8 years from ED we have a two unfinished theatres (one of which has been knocking around for many years) and a few modules of which only a couple could be classed as 'complete' with many others in various unknown states and years of delays.
Posted By: zaelu

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 03/23/16 10:04 AM

At some point these (easy) campaigns will not sell enough so they will not make them anymore. Then maybe a DC will be worth investment and in parallel more complex campaigns that a DC engine would not cover might become best sellers.

For now is very good they produce content for people that enjoy such content (not me sadly as I usually fall asleep during mission 6). That means they will seek to develop this area.

I just want all those super lua scripts to be integrated in a user friendly UI. But I guess then any n00b might be able to do cool missions.
Posted By: Paradaz

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 03/23/16 06:41 PM

As long as ED keep missing deadlines and spreading their resources so thinly over new announced content the mini-campaigns will probably sell quite well.....because there is very little else to keep the customers entertained.....apart from empty statements, announcements and hints that development continues.
Posted By: Nate

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 03/23/16 07:53 PM

Keep banging that drum..... smile

Nate
Posted By: Clutch

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 03/23/16 09:11 PM

Don't you guys know that Mini-Campaigns, Empty Statements, Announcements, and Hints have Electrolytes!

They got what Sim-Pilots CRAVE!
Posted By: leaf_on_the_wind

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 03/23/16 09:26 PM

Lol , thats brilliant
Posted By: cichlidfan

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 03/23/16 09:34 PM

Originally Posted By: Clutch
Don't you guys know that Mini-Campaigns, Empty Statements, Announcements, and Hints have Electrolytes!

They got what Sim-Pilots CRAVE!


Wrong beverage, that would be Gator-ade! wink
Posted By: Nate

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 03/23/16 11:41 PM

Originally Posted By: heartc
Originally Posted By: Nate
I want the mission result to have an effect on the campaign.


Exactly. And not by spitting out different branches of scripted missions, but by changing the environment in terms of threat level / threat type / asset number for the next mission.

Of course, a system that would be integrated with the program (DCS) itself could - at one further step - do away with the total randomness of the random mission generator and instead track which specific targets at which specific locations were taken out. My program only tracks and limits the overall availability of enemy force for the next mission and tracks replenish rate of that overall force, but thus still giving incentive and requiring thought about what type of enemy asset to go after in your next mission and / or which is sensible to do according to what the random mission generator came up with.



I've mentioned it elsewhere, but annoyingly the some of the tools to actually do this are already there in DCS. Admittedly it takes a few changes to enable in Lua, but object state I/O from Missions (even in realtime) is in the code and asset tracking capabilities in the mission editor. It's just nobody has tied it together yet, let alone made it into a functional UI.

It still requires something to process the Mission output to input for the next iteration. A few talented Campaign Creators have harnessed parts of it, however it still remains mostly opaque.

Nate
Posted By: Paradaz

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 03/24/16 12:01 AM

As long as ED keep missing their own deadlines and continue to show minimal 'progress' this drum will keep banging.

It's quite simple really.....if ED can get their act together after what is so far 8+ years of trying then there won't be anything to complain about will there!


Originally Posted By: "Nate"
It's just nobody has tied it together yet, let alone made it into a functional UI


You test for and represent ED on these forums, yet your approach is to rely on or look for 3rd parties to find a solution?

P1ss up in a brewery, ash tray on a motorbike or a chocolate fireguard springs to mind!
Posted By: Winfield

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 03/24/16 01:19 AM

Originally Posted By: Sobek
Originally Posted By: Winfield
the engine was already moved to DX11 back in 2012 no doubt earlier maybe 2010


With regard to anything DCS, no, it wasn't. 1.5 was the first version that ran on DX11.


Ok I'll rephrase it.

DX-11 was running on the EDGE platform as far back as 2010 possibly even earlier. The delay in getting the "Official" DCS version of EDGE 1.5 out, was no doubt due to ED fulfilling their contracts to companies such as AVIA and the like. Nothing like the spin doctors excuses over at the official forums, heck it took how long to fix the AI crossing bridges in the old map? simple things could have been rectified if ED was not dedicated to pumping out maps that would possibly win military contracts.

ED was busy making maps for AVIA with the new engine which later became known as "EDGE" running on DX11. As AVIA go to military expo's all around the world show casing their work, ED looked at it like a free advertising exercise so they put customer complaints on the back burner for 2 or 3 years, employed dodgy 3rd party devs to fill the void and shift the blame of long map delays and official product updates, to having the majority of consumers change their focus on complaining about ED to blaming 3rd parties for their shortcomings. The only way ED will release an official DC campaign is if a military contractor requests it, just like AVIA did 6 or so years ago when they requested a decent map running on DX11 systems.

Where the conspiracy lies however is that AVIA now have the FSX logo on some maps persuading people to believe the maps are running on the old and tired FSX platform (DX-10), however there is official confirmation over at the ED official forums that the maps are in fact running on the EDGE platform (DX11), don't believe me? just search Corsica or EDGE and read the messages posted by the ED testers and moderators back in 2013-14 when these maps from AVIA first came to light.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BXOwnYpqCgA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wNxJYBo5uFU

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tLFs2otuilc

to name a few.....

Now these guys and no doubt others must be paying a bucket load for these maps, considering only AVIA have the license to use them, unlike Nevada which thousands of the public have purchased. Can anyone else see where I am going with this? Why put 1.5 and 2.0 on hold for years and build maps for 1 company to use yet "10's of thousands" (I'm assuming based on hawk sales by none other than "up the chain at VEAO") would have paid at $50 bucks a pop to own the Nevada map.


So why don't we have a dynamic campaign? it will happen when AVIA and the like say they require one and then after 6 years more years it may filter down and we will see a DC for public use.

Is comparing maps and campaigns pointless? nope, completely on board and I'll sum up.

AVIA as a company must have paid millions more for their maps than what the public customers have paid combined for Nevada., Heck AVIA must have paid 10's of millions more than the joint sale of Nevada if ED put development of 1.5, 2.0 and conned BST to drop their planned modules to help push out these maps. Sounds like a tax scam to me, build maps, claim it on tax.

If you want an official ED produced Dynamic Campaign, be prepared to pay 50 odd million to make it happen, that or push AVIA to get ED to make it happen, just like they did with the maps. Looks like AVIA are the puppet masters in this simulator.
Posted By: mrskortch

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 03/24/16 03:52 AM

Originally Posted By: Winfield
Is comparing maps and campaigns pointless? nope, completely on board


Comparisons can be made but they aren't strictly equal. For missions/campaigns the tools are built into the game and I'd argue functions as a critical component of the overall package. Check out the multiplayer server browser and of the 80+ servers I bet you can only count the number of them running built in missions on just one hand. Terrain, and as an extension full fledged modules, are a different matter and generally require a whole lot more know-how and other programs to make it into a reality. The barrier of entry for Joe user to make a campaign and get it sold as a DLC is much lower to trying to make a terrain or aircraft.
Posted By: Winfield

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 03/24/16 08:46 AM

Originally Posted By: mrskortch
Originally Posted By: Winfield
Is comparing maps and campaigns pointless? nope, completely on board


Comparisons can be made but they aren't strictly equal. For missions/campaigns the tools are built into the game and I'd argue functions as a critical component of the overall package. Check out the multiplayer server browser and of the 80+ servers I bet you can only count the number of them running built in missions on just one hand. Terrain, and as an extension full fledged modules, are a different matter and generally require a whole lot more know-how and other programs to make it into a reality. The barrier of entry for Joe user to make a campaign and get it sold as a DLC is much lower to trying to make a terrain or aircraft.


I agree with what you are saying, my point is that ED won't implement a DC unless an outside backer steps in and coughs up countless dollars to make it an official reality before the tools and know how filter down for public use.

If Joe public had the ability to put together a DC and get it sold as a DLC, Grimes, Speed or someone else with the scripting know how would have done it yonks back (using external save script data such as notepad). ED could support M-bot in his endeavour to make his DC a reality across the module board, even if that means sharing insider information or design tools to make it work. Instead of another outside external tool to record the data like FsEconomy do with FSX etc etc (disclaimer: I've used fseconomy as an example of external use programs that save game data)

an ingame UI with official ED support is much more valuable than external saves in notepad and the like as previously mentioned in this thread.
Posted By: Nate

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 03/24/16 01:49 PM

Originally Posted By: Paradaz

Originally Posted By: "Nate"
It's just nobody has tied it together yet, let alone made it into a functional UI


You test for and represent ED on these forums, yet your approach is to rely on or look for 3rd parties to find a solution?


That isn't what I've said. Please be kind enough not put words in my mouth. However, feel free to quote where I've said this should be a 3rd party endeavour to create.

I don't think we are at odds with the desire for a DC to be honest, the priority its been given I think is where we diverge.

Oh and just to clear up one thing I don't represent ED in any official capacity, however I can understand why this might be seen this way.

Nate
Posted By: Paradaz

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 03/24/16 08:27 PM

Originally Posted By: Paradaz
You test for and represent ED on these forums, yet your approach is to rely on or look for 3rd parties to find a solution?



Originally Posted By: Nate"
That isn't what I've said. Please be kind enough not put words in my mouth. However, feel free to quote where I've said this should be a 3rd party endeavour to create.



I didn't quote you or put any words in your mouth, as you can see from my own quote above I said that your APPROACH is to look for others (i.e people outside of ED) to find the solution. It's quite obvious I'm correct in this because your previous statement which I will quote you was the following;

Originally Posted By: "Nate"
It's just nobody has tied it together yet, let alone made it into a functional UI


Nobody?......well, if you're not saying that 'ED has tied it together yet' then you're obviously referring to people outside of the company. Why should anyone else other than ED find a solution in the first place? If they didn't stumble from one plan to the next they would know exactly what work they have to do and how they were going to do it.

I think you'd struggle to find anyone who thinks that ED know which direction they're actually travelling in.....and if they do know, it's certainly in their commercial/military interests with the desktop userbase as an afterthought that follows their primary focus and is completely reactive rather than pro-active.




Posted By: Nate

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 03/24/16 09:11 PM

Nope sorry, that's you drawing your own inference to suit your agenda, quelle surprise.

I never said it my approach was to rely on or look for 3rd parties to find a solution. I very much doubt anybody outside ED would be willing to take it on anyway. Some of the tools and hooks in code are there, but not the glue to hold them together. The closest attempt at it will be MBots Dynamic Campaign Engine. But to suggest it will fit seamlessly into DCS as a native campaign engine would is naive.

Nate
Posted By: Sobek

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 03/24/16 11:09 PM

Originally Posted By: Paradaz

Nobody?......well, if you're not saying that 'ED has tied it together yet' then you're obviously referring to people outside of the company.


No, actually what his exact words meant is that neither ED nor anybody else has 'tied it together'. That is what 'nobody' means. On that notion, i'll gladly send you a bottle of an alcoholic beverage of your choice if you find any dictionary that states that 'nobody' means 'everybody except ED'.

This is hilarious.
Posted By: Paradaz

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 03/25/16 08:33 AM

Exactly my point Sobek.

Originally Posted By: "Paradaz"
Nobody?......well, if you're not saying that 'ED has tied it together yet' then you're obviously referring to people outside of the company. Why should anyone else other than ED find a solution in the first place?


'Nobody' obviously is everyone so a real big thanks for clarifying that.....and because ED wasn't specifically mentioned in Nate's post, then he's including people outside of the company too hence my question with regards why anyone outside of ED would even be remotely responsible for finding a solution.

The only hilarious thing here is watching people like you dig a hole and then jump into with both feet on the defensive when it's quite clear you're not actually reading the previous posts.

I think you must just see key words about DCS/ED which send you into a rage. Has it ever occurred to you that you don't actually help ED's cause?.....I often think you do more damage to their reputation by getting involved in discussion whilst representing them.

EDs communication and customer relations are thought of as paticularly poor and abrasive.....ever wondered why?


Posted By: Nate

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 03/25/16 07:23 PM

Originally Posted By: Paradaz
and because ED wasn't specifically mentioned in Nate's post, then he's including people outside of the company too hence my question with regards why anyone outside of ED would even be remotely responsible for finding a solution.


I never said anybody should be responsible for anything. Please quote me if I have. You are drawing that inference alone. To directly answer your question above, nobody is actually responsible for finding any solution, not even ED, even though they are best placed to do it.

Nate
Posted By: Paradaz

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 03/25/16 07:48 PM

I'm not going to repeat myself over and over again for the benefit of you and Sobek.

Read.the.thread.

The second time you have stated something is 'my inference'. I know it's completely alien to you, and ED have not grasped the concept......but this is a FORUM. It's probably worth you looking up the definition and appreciating what the mechanism is and how they function.
Posted By: Nate

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 03/25/16 08:09 PM

I answered your question above? You, incorrectly, inferred my viewpoint from something I said, and I addressed that, and, I also answered what you inferred from it. What's the problem?

Nate
Posted By: Paradaz

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 03/26/16 02:18 AM

Just for you Nate
Posted By: Sobek

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 03/27/16 04:58 PM

If you quote your thread 10 times it still won't change the fact that your are (deliberately or not) misrepresenting the content of other people's posts.
Posted By: Paradaz

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 03/27/16 09:30 PM

People are expressing opinions Sobek....OPINIONS. I don't need to put "In my opinion........" at the start of every post because this is a forum and this is what forums are for.

You seemingly have no idea of how a forum works, what purpose they serve and the definition of a forum itself. I can appreciate why this format may be troublesome for you because the ED boards isn't a forum because people aren't allowed to air their opinions - it's simply a controlled message board whereby content that isn't agreed upon by the developers and their staff is removed in order to create a biased set of messages that only serve to reflect what the devs and staff want others to see.

I've quoted Nate a couple of times, and when that happens it's quite clear it's a quote (it even says 'quote' and puts a pretty little box around the text).

Originally Posted By: "Example"
Just like this


You'll notice I haven't referenced a set of minutes from any recent ED board meetings - and in that vain, neither have you when disputing anything you don't like.

Definition of a forum, - it's summarised for you at the top of the page.
Posted By: Tom_Weiss

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 03/28/16 12:05 AM

Originally Posted By: Paradaz


Definition of a forum, - it's summarised for you at the top of the page.


I had a good laugh, thank you - I needed it biggrin smile wink
Posted By: Sobek

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 03/28/16 08:20 AM

Originally Posted By: Paradaz
People are expressing opinions Sobek....OPINIONS. I don't need to put "In my opinion........" at the start of every post because this is a forum and this is what forums are for.


I'm perfectly fine with people posting their opinions. On the other hand, id doesn't seem like you are.

Originally Posted By: Paradaz

[a bunch of prejudiced blah]


So, in your OPINION, a discussion on a forum involves disregarding what other people say and instead talking about what your (admittedly very special) perception of what they say is, then getting upset when said people correct you on your perceptions because they obviously don't know what they were saying? That does sound like the antithesis to what a discussion should be.

And Paradaz, explain me this, what bearing has EDs boards on any of this?
Posted By: Paradaz

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 03/28/16 09:07 AM

It's really very simple Sobek, you've made it very clear to everyone why I've mentioned the ED boards.

You're trying to emphasise my reference to OPINIONS, yet you also mention that people (you) are trying to 'correct' these perceptions! You're really trying to correct what I perceive and believe?.....my opinion!

That's exactly why the ED boards are not worth visiting.....it's not a discussion, large sections are selective, biased nonsense controlled by ED and their mods.

If you read this thread carefully like I politely asked you to do so many times you'll see several quotes and an entry where I said Nate's APPROACH is to...... now that isn't a quote, it wasn't part of quoted text - its part of my opinion whether you like it or not.

You may notice that only you and Nate are challenging and stating my opinion is either incorrect, needs changing or that I'm inferring something - deal with it in the manner SimHQ requests their community to do so and not in the heavy-handed manner ED think everything they don't fully agree with should be handled. You both represent ED and reflect the same behaviour that is associated with the ED boards - how coincidental.

In case you hadn't noticed this is SimHQ where opinions and discussion of opinions are encouraged......not corrected, changed, altered or fixed!

You'd do well to try and understand and appreciate that.
Posted By: Nate

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 03/28/16 10:31 AM

Originally Posted By: Paradaz

In case you hadn't noticed this is SimHQ where opinions and discussion of opinions are encouraged......not corrected, changed, altered or fixed!

You'd do well to try and understand and appreciate that.


Hang on, you are guilty of this yourself - re-interpreting things that I've said in this very thread for one example. Even when I've attempted to clarify my position, you've refused to discuss it, nor apologise.

You might say that's your "Opinion" afterwards, but you are phrasing your reinterpretation of what I've said as a statement of fact. This is deceitful.

Nate
Posted By: Paradaz

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 03/28/16 11:24 AM

Sigh, and so it goes on.....these aren't the ED boards as I've said before. It's not even worth attempting to discuss anything with you or Sobek because you seem incapable of discussing anything and would rather use your time to suggest how other peoples' opinions are incorrect and need 'fixing'. (we've also moved onto deceitful now). I'm not going to continue the last 3 pages of tit-for-tat rubbish about how supposedly I'm mis-quoting you, putting words in your mouth or being deceitful, none of which have happened and if you actually read the thread from the first post onwards (how many times have I requested you do this?) you may actually notice that.

I've seen the ED mods attempts at trying to close down SimHQ threads before, by taking things so far off topic, playing the victim, not having the hard facts yadda, yadda, yaddaa and I'm not going to give you the pleasure of taking this the same way and getting it locked up either just because the content may be something neither of you like.

Everyone else is ignoring your off-topic rants, I'll do the same from this point on so that you don't get the satisfaction of getting SimHQ threads locked up. The topic up for discussion is ED's focus on Campaigns for a quick profit and how it may be detrimental to all the other unfinished content that is spread within the 'World'.
Posted By: Clutch

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 03/28/16 11:52 AM

Quote:
Everyone else is ignoring your off-topic rants, I'll do the same from this point on so that you don't get the satisfaction of getting SimHQ threads locked up. The topic up for discussion is ED's focus on Campaigns for a quick profit and how it may be detrimental to all the other unfinished content that is spread within the 'world'.


WHAT? is the big deal with this. ED got these campaigns fully packaged from third parties, Got them pretty cheap I presume. Then they put them out and turn a buck from those who CHOOSE to buy them. They aren't required content. No one is forced to buy them. ED had to put very minimal, if any effort into getting them ready to sell.

ED doesn't have to expend any effort, they make a little money, and they continue to WORK on the other projects.

So, unless someone has solid proof that the folks at ED are spending all their money and time on cocaine and Lady-Boys, I don't really see a downside to them making a little extra money with a minimum of effort.

Sheesh, the sky is not falling because they chose to release a couple of pay-to-play campaigns.....

Clutch
Posted By: Sobek

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 03/28/16 12:02 PM

How am i interfering with your freedom to express your opinion? Because i stated that you misrepresented the meaning of somebody elses post? Freedom of speech does not extend your freedoms to the point where you can falsify somebody elses statements and additionally grant you immunity from that somebody else to step in and correct your perception. You are way off base to even suggest that that is in any way an interference with your rights to post here. In fact, that is one part of being in a discussion. Maybe it is you who needs education on that.

Originally Posted By: Paradaz
You both represent ED and reflect the same behaviour that is associated with the ED boards - how coincidental.


I do not represent ED in any capacity nor am i associated with them in any way at this time. You can ask anyone.

Originally Posted By: Paradaz

You'd do well to try and understand and appreciate that.


So would you with my above statement, given that i have explained it before. Another thing you conveniently disregard to paint me into a corner whenever it suits you.



Posted By: Paradaz

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 03/28/16 12:47 PM

Originally Posted By: Clutch
WHAT? is the big deal with this. ED got these campaigns fully packaged from third parties, Got them pretty cheap I presume. Then they put them out and turn a buck from those who CHOOSE to buy them. They aren't required content. No one is forced to buy them. ED had to put very minimal, if any effort into getting them ready to sell.

ED doesn't have to expend any effort, they make a little money, and they continue to WORK on the other projects.

So, unless someone has solid proof that the folks at ED are spending all their money and time on cocaine and Lady-Boys, I don't really see a downside to them making a little extra money with a minimum of effort.

Sheesh, the sky is not falling because they chose to release a couple of pay-to-play campaigns.....

Clutch


No, the sky isn't falling....yet, but this is the sort of discussion we're prompting - it's good to see/hear others opinions on how they see this. I'm just a little weary and mentioned it many months ago that I hope this isn't the start of a push for campaign after campaign. Yes, this is third-party content (ED have released their own too recently), but ED also have to put their own resources to patch the game to allow and prepare for the release of this kind of content as mentioned in the newsletter 2 weeks ago. I highlighted part of your quote in red, because that's is not quite correct as they had to specifically create a patch just to support this. I would also assume (you never know with ED) that we're talking more than just creating an installer here, I would expect QA to be involved, lots of testing, some possible bug-fixing, making further changes to ensure compatibility with current/future branches that ED are concurrently working on and then there is additional work and resources required to prepare it for the release itself.

In a nutshell, my fear is that easy profits for campaigns like this could mean that ED resources are pushed into more and more campaigns, more and more patches to support it which may have a detrimental effect on progress of unfinished content (of which there is a lot) especially when ED won't receive additional funds for that work....it may be all too easy to shift focus - what happens when there are multiple campaigns in development at the same time etc!

I may be wrong, but is it not the release of 3 campaigns in as many months?.....it's certainly more progress than anything else we've been informed of.....I mean, the Hawk was completely unplayable for a while and that according to "Skatezilla" was a simple compiler error! Priorities? - which is more important to the customers? Do ED's priorities in making a little extra money completely overshadow customers who have paid for early release software and/or does the term 'beta' mean they can pretty much do what they want and get away with anything banded under that term?
Posted By: Nate

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 03/28/16 01:17 PM

I wonder at what rate you would consider Campaign releases to have a negative impact on EDs other work, say the F-18, or Nevada for example? One a quarter? One a month?

Nate
Posted By: Paradaz

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 03/28/16 01:35 PM

I have no idea and nor do I care.....thats for ED to manage.

But it's safe to say that when version 2.5 merges the 1.5 and 2.0 branches the more campaigns that exist there is undoubtedly more work for ED to do to ensure compatibility because the 3rd parties that create campaigns won't be responsible!
Posted By: Nate

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 03/28/16 01:45 PM

Originally Posted By: Paradaz
I have no idea.....


Finally, something we can agree on. biggrin

Nate
Posted By: Paradaz

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 03/28/16 02:03 PM

Ooh, you're so deceitful cutting off my quote like that and inferring something else. biggrin

On a serious note I can see you're not disputing the additional work I mention though....because isn't it true that whatever involvement ED have for the campaigns (from themselves and 3rd parties) that are part of the 1.5 or 2.0 dev branch will ALL have to be repeated in terms of testing/recompiling/QA (if it exists) and further bug-fixing, to ensure compatibility with a new 2.5 branch - and the more campaigns that exist, the more this work is magnified!

This is another example where ED would never have planned for, simply because they probably didn't forsee taking external campaigns from years back or more recently and incorporating them into current builds. We all know that ED haven't got a good track-record (in fact none whatsoever) in getting anything out on time to their own scheduled timeline. There is no possible way that these campaigns can help their cause but there is every possibility that it may hinder.

A push or focus on these campaigns most certainly negates the previous comment by 'Clutch' that ED doesn't have to expend any effort
Posted By: Nate

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 03/28/16 02:14 PM

And yet, as you yourself admitted 3 posts ago, release of campaigns doesn't mean that it is to the detriment of their other ongoing work.

Nate
Posted By: Paradaz

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 03/28/16 02:44 PM

Are you referring to this from the first page? I don't see any mention within my last 3 posts.

Originally Posted By: "Paradaz"
Whilst I understand that different people/skillsets/resources won't always be employed on the same areas of work


Well, we don't know that is a fact but we'd like to think it's true....but that's exactly why it's a concern. Unless ED now have a 'Campaigns' department then someone has to do the work when they would have otherwise been tasked with something else.

I guess it's all in ED's management or resources, and if it's anything like the management of timely releases then it will be another classic example of ineptitude. Given their past history even you can surely see why this topic was raised for discussion....with Nevada and DCS 2.0 which was released half-baked with half the functionality originally envisaged I'd much rather ED focused on the existing work required to finish off these components than having to divert staff that may have been involved in current development into patches/bug fixes and the niff-naff and trivia for internal and 3rd party campaigns which may never have been part of the original planning.
Posted By: Nate

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 03/28/16 02:56 PM

Originally Posted By: Paradaz
Well, we don't know that is a fact....that's exactly why it's a concern. Unless ED now have a 'Campaigns' department then someone has to do the work that otherwise would have been tasked with something else.

I guess it's all in ED's management or resources, and if it's anything like the management of timely releases then it will be another classic example of ineptitude.


I'd agree, there is no evidence of how ED manages the campaign production cycle to determine anything really.

Nate
Posted By: Paradaz

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 03/28/16 02:58 PM

Good answer....because that also proves you are just as clueless as the rest of us when we air our opinions for discussion, and it certainly shows that no-ones opinion needs 'fixing' on SimHQ if you have no factual evidence at hand when trying to dispute ED's incompetence.
Posted By: Sobek

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 03/28/16 03:10 PM

And yet you never get tired of passing judgement about peoples professionalism when you, by your own admission, know nothing at all about the circumstances they work under. Isn't that somewhat unprofessional?
Posted By: Paradaz

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 03/28/16 03:25 PM

So it's 'unprofessional' to have an opinion now Sobek? This is SimHQ not ED's boards....opinions are encouraged. If these forums are here to discuss and share opinions about various 'Sim' products then we're effectively passing judgement about people's professionalism all the time - unfortunately in ED's case a lot of it is negative and for valid reason.

For the last time in reply to your off-topic rants, I'll refer you to the definition of a forum and this time I'll go as far as typing it out for you.

a meeting or medium where ideas and views on a particular issue can be exchanged

The circumstances that ED work under are completely irrelevant. ED take money in exchange for a product - customers care about the product. ED in the last 8 years have failed to deliver their product on time. If you want to off on a tangent about circumstances, working conditions or something else then create a new topic and go ahead and discuss it.

Posted By: Nate

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 03/28/16 03:32 PM

It goes both ways, if you express an opinion others are allowed to comment on it, that is how a forum works.

Nate
Posted By: Paradaz

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 03/28/16 03:40 PM

Originally Posted By: Nate
It goes both ways, if you express an opinion others are allowed to comment on it, that is how a forum works.

Nate


Yep, and I'm perfectly happy with that - not once have I attempted to stop anyone from having or stating their opinion.

Sobek asked me a question with regards to whether not knowing the circumstances by which an opinion is informed is unprofessional. In case it wasn't clear with my last reply then the answer is no, of course it isn't. We have opinions about everything and everything in life without knowing the circumstances.

However, forums are also bound by a set of rules (note, I didn't say dictatorship which would apply elsewhere) so that our discussion can remain civilised. One of these is to remain on-topic so that it doesn't become a free-for-all and stray from the discussion in hand. Have a quick count of yours and Sobek posts in this thread where you're not discussing the focus of ED campaigns. Enough said.

I'm also guilty of going off-topic too, where I stupidly replied to yours and Sobek's posts.
Posted By: Nate

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 03/28/16 04:04 PM

Fair enough - I can't seem to find that particular rule on SimHQ but I'll take you word for it. I will agree that some might express opinions about everything and everything in life without knowing the circumstances, but if that is the case, such opinions are likely to be called out for what they are, ill-informed and baseless.

Nate
Posted By: Sobek

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 03/28/16 04:07 PM

Originally Posted By: Paradaz
So it's 'unprofessional' to have an opinion now Sobek?


Where did i say that? Your creative reading skills are a thing of wonder.

It is unprofessional to publicly pass judgement without proper knowledge of the circumstances.
Having an opinion does not in all cases meet the criterion of judgement being passed, therefore it can NOT AT ALL be said that i wrote that it is unprofessional to have an opinion. Your deduction has failed you once again. Maybe you should give it a rest.

Originally Posted By: Paradaz

This is SimHQ not ED's boards....opinions are encouraged. If these forums are here to discuss and share opinions about various 'Sim' products then we're effectively passing judgement about people's professionalism all the time - unfortunately in ED's case a lot of it is negative and for valid reason.


And me finding one (or in fact most) of your opinions poorly informed does not in any way impact your ability to voice it on this forum. If you find my statements untrue or you don't agree with them, be my guest and argue your point some more or add me to your ignore list.


Originally Posted By: Paradaz

For the last time in reply to your off-topic rants, I'll refer you to the definition of a forum and this time I'll go as far as typing it out for you.

a meeting or medium where ideas and views on a particular issue can be exchanged


You repeat yourself in absolutely failing to describe how anybody interfered with you voicing your opinion. You are in fact chastising and lecturing people for something they never did. It's kind of obnoxious.

Originally Posted By: Paradaz

ED in the last 8 years have failed to deliver their product on time.


Which one?
Posted By: Johnny_Redd

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 03/28/16 04:17 PM

Originally Posted By: Sobek
..

Originally Posted By: Paradaz

ED in the last 8 years have failed to deliver their product on time.


Which one?

Well I can name the spitfire, the p-47 and the Normandy map. Those were to be released in the early half of 2015. Wags words, not speculation. 2016 now and still no sign.
Posted By: Sobek

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 03/28/16 04:18 PM

That doesn't constitute all of EDs products over the last 8 years.
Posted By: Johnny_Redd

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 03/28/16 04:22 PM

No but those three are over a year late and counting. Not that impressive really is it? Maybe you can throw some spin on that?
EDGe was supposed to by released every year for the past how many? Finally came out this year. Years later
Posted By: Sobek

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 03/28/16 04:32 PM

Originally Posted By: Johnny_Redd
No but those three are over a year late and counting. Not that impressive really is it? Maybe you can throw some spin on that?


ED was left picking up the pieces. Maybe they should have announced early on that the original schedule will most likely be unrealistic. That's all i am personally willing to fault them for.

Originally Posted By: Johnny_Redd
EDGe was supposed to by released every year for the past how many? Finally came out this year. Years later


And didn't cost you or anyone else one dime. Where i come from, beggars can't be choosers. wink
Posted By: Paradaz

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 03/28/16 04:36 PM

What has cost to the customer got to do with professionalism and meeting target dates? Isn't that what you're now disputing? There is no relation......or does no monetary cost mean it gets swept under the carpet and/or therefore can't be classed as delayed/not met the target date?
Posted By: Johnny_Redd

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 03/28/16 04:41 PM

Originally Posted By: Sobek
Originally Posted By: Johnny_Redd
No but those three are over a year late and counting. Not that impressive really is it? Maybe you can throw some spin on that?


ED was left picking up the pieces. Maybe they should have announced early on that the original schedule will most likely be unrealistic. That's all i am personally willing to fault them for.

Picking up the pieces of their own fiasco.
They always announce their schedules are most likely unrealistic with the catch all "everything is subject to change". They're basically saying "were talking BS and have no idea when things will be released"
Posted By: Sobek

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 03/28/16 04:48 PM

Originally Posted By: Johnny_Redd
They always announce their schedules are most likely unrealistic with the catch all "everything is subject to change". They're basically saying "were talking BS and have no idea when things will be released"


So what? They eventually deliver high quality products. Would you rather they compromise the quality instead of the development time?
Posted By: Johnny_Redd

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 03/28/16 04:55 PM

I would rather they finish what they start before throwing more products onto the production line. Especially when they have folks money. The announcement and then release of their trainer and it's continued development has come at the cost of delays to previously announced products. That is unprofessional and shows a disgusting level of disregard for their customers.
Posted By: Paradaz

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 03/28/16 04:59 PM

Originally Posted By: Sobek
So what? They eventually deliver high quality products.


No-one is disputing the quality of the products, but I'm gobsmacked.....are you talking 'eventual deliveries' and professionalism in the same sentence?

Basically everything is just purdy as long as it eventually arrives! Wow.

I think your idea of professionalism is grossly different to mine. Is it just ED that this version of 'professionalism' applies to or everything in life as long as a product arrives at some point in time?

ED don't have to balance quality, they have to start planning properly.
Posted By: Sobek

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 03/28/16 05:21 PM

Originally Posted By: Paradaz

Basically everything is just purdy as long as it eventually arrives! Wow.


Under some circumstances that can't be excluded with our level of knowledge, it is the best you can hope for. I'm actually gobsmacked that someone who regards himself as such a capacity in project management doesn't consider any other possibility than the one that allows himself to berate ED.

Originally Posted By: Paradaz

I think your idea of professionalism is grossly different to mine.


Heureka!
Posted By: Paradaz

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 03/28/16 05:25 PM

It's not like it's a one-off Sobek, everything from Blackshark/Blackshark2 and the first announcement of the Nevada alpha has been nothing short of an absolute cluster with ED.

If 'hoping for the best' is good enough for you then great.....that's not how I work or would expect from anyone/any company in a professional capacity whatsoever. As I stated previously, any company that delivers a product to a customer is merited on exactly that - the delivery of the end product and not how what circumstances that may or may not affect them along the way.
Posted By: Cajun

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 03/28/16 11:05 PM

Can a moderator stick a fork in this?

It is tiresome.
Posted By: Johnny_Redd

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 03/28/16 11:11 PM

Originally Posted By: Cajun
Can a moderator stick a fork in this?

It is tiresome.

Yes let's stick a fork in all the threads that folk find tiresome as they lack the capacity to stay away from the threads they find tiresome. Sheesh
Posted By: Winfield

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 03/29/16 06:45 AM

Originally Posted By: Johnny_Redd
Originally Posted By: Cajun
Can a moderator stick a fork in this?

It is tiresome.

Yes let's stick a fork in all the threads that folk find tiresome as they lack the capacity to stay away from the threads they find tiresome. Sheesh


[Text deleted] would make a good community manager for ED with his thoughtless thinking, hit up the moderators at ED and see if there are positions vacant. Sobek lost the Moderator title, probably by no means other than spreading inaccurate information about ED campaigns.

Do not characterize other SimHQ members. Address the message content, not the author's characteristics.
Posted By: Sobek

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 03/29/16 07:28 AM

Originally Posted By: Winfield
Sobek lost the Moderator title, probably by no means other than spreading inaccurate information about ED campaigns.


Spreading inaccurate information about ED campaigns? How about yourself spreading inaccurate information about me?

Since you are obviously wondering, i quit moderation because i no longer have the time required to do it. Nobody at ED *ever* asked me to quit or suggested anything of the sort. Now, if you could just stop talking out yer behind about me, that'd be dandy. In case you are wondering, yes, that is egg on your face.

And just what "inaccurate information" did i spread, hmm?
Posted By: Winfield

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 03/29/16 09:46 AM

Originally Posted By: Sobek
Originally Posted By: Winfield
Sobek probably by no means other than spreading inaccurate information about ED campaigns.


Spreading inaccurate information about ED campaigns? How about yourself spreading inaccurate information about me?

Since you are obviously wondering, i quit moderation because i no longer have the time required to do it. Nobody at ED *ever* asked me to quit or suggested anything of the sort. Now, if you could just stop talking out yer behind about me, that'd be dandy. In case you are wondering, yes, that is egg on your face.

And just what "inaccurate information" did i spread, hmm?


As this is an open community forum and not a dictatorship, the definition of an open forum which has been stated previously in this very thread. Myself and every other person here is entitled to give their opinion. In this case, It is my interpretation of why you are not a Moderator at ED. For the record, I used the word "probably", meaning it was a 50\50 chance that I would be correct in my statement. However as you have stated your facts (which we are lead to believe is your honest opinion), my interpretation of why you are not longer a moderator over at Ed falls into the category of the other 50% chance that I was wrong.

Posted By: Sobek

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 03/29/16 10:39 AM

You didn't even know what the chance of you being correct was because you just wildly speculated. I'm still waiting for ONE piece of evidence where i spread wrong information about ED campaigns. Otherwise i might just start to speculate that you are willfully making stuff up just to character assassinate me.

You know what, a decent person just might have gone ahead asked me instead of going straight to spreading unsubstantiated hearsay.
Posted By: SlipBall

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 03/29/16 12:01 PM

The moderation game is a tough one over there, your better off not being involved any longer...I think many people stay away from that forum because it is too restrictive
Posted By: Winfield

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 03/30/16 07:24 AM

Originally Posted By: Sobek
You didn't even know what the chance of you being correct


For the record, I was only half wrong. 50% wrong as previously stated.
Posted By: Winfield

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 03/30/16 07:51 AM

Originally Posted By: SlipBall
The moderation game is a tough one over there, your better off not being involved any longer...I think many people stay away from that forum because it is too restrictive


Oh indeed, checked there a moment ago to see I have been issued a 1 month ban. It just confirms my suspicion that [edited] legacy lives on with the mentality of that very same controlled environment.

Unable to voice an opinion here with out being banned over there.

[Text deleted] is a prime example of the [edited] mentality shared by other moderators over there and past moderators. Just doesn't know when to quit when his point being made has no merit. It's a dictatorship over there and that same mentality is not welcome here.

Do not characterize other SimHQ members. Address the message content, not the author's characteristics.
Posted By: Sobek

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 03/30/16 08:57 AM

Originally Posted By: Winfield
For the record, I was only half wrong. 50% wrong as previously stated.


This must be the famous Schrödinger's Weasel. You sir, are a genius.
Posted By: leaf_on_the_wind

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 03/30/16 09:27 AM

Originally Posted By: Winfield
Originally Posted By: SlipBall
The moderation game is a tough one over there, your better off not being involved any longer...I think many people stay away from that forum because it is too restrictive


Oh indeed, checked there a moment ago to see I have been issued a 1 month ban. It just confirms my suspicion that [edited] legacy lives on with the mentality of that very same controlled environment.

Unable to voice an opinion here with out being banned over there.

Sobek is a prime example of the [edited] mentality shared by other moderators over there and past moderators. Just doesn't know when to quit when his point being made has no merit. It's a dictatorship over there and that same mentality is not welcome here.


It kinda like fight club ..... first rule of fascist censorship ...... we don't talk about fascist censorship

It must be nice being a mod over there , don't like what someone says .... Ban hammer
Plus the perks of a snappy looking uniforms with great looking boots and a cap with a pretty symbol ......
kinda reminds me of this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aLJUocaDYw0

I wonder if they will some day have a similar realisation?
Posted By: CyBerkut

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 03/30/16 11:26 AM

Excerpted from:
Forum Registration and Use Agreement
Quote:
SimHQ’s forums are intended for our members to learn and exchange information about our common interests, share experiences and enjoy time spent with one another. We expect members to treat each other with respect and civility.


I don't expect everything to be sweetness, light, rainbows and unicorns. Spirited discussion and disagreement is allowed. However, aim it at the content of the post, not the author of the post.

Subjects such as E.D.'s, or 3rd party developers', business practices, product development, and marketing are fair game. The moderation practices over at E.D.'s forums, being a part of marketing, are fair game.

However, calling other SimHQ members names or characterizing them is not acceptable. If you disagree with the content of something they posted, then address that.
Posted By: Murphy

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 03/30/16 07:18 PM

And I thought the Community Hall was a tough place.
I stand corrected CyBerkut.

You have my respect, and thanks for doing a tough job.

These guys aren't making it any easier either....... rolleyes

Lighten up people, we lose this guy, and you lose a forum.
Think about it.
Posted By: Force10

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 03/30/16 07:35 PM

Originally Posted By: Murphy


You have my respect, and thanks for doing a tough job.



Damn straight!

Thanks for hanging in there Cyberkut

salute
Posted By: Johnny_Redd

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 03/30/16 08:10 PM

welcome back force10. I hope things are a lot better for you now
Posted By: Murphy

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 03/30/16 09:54 PM

Thank GOD.......

This forum is a moderator eater.
Welcome back.

Have you seen CyBerkut around, on the floor anywhere???.......I know he's been drinking heavily.....
Posted By: CyBerkut

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 03/30/16 10:21 PM

Originally Posted By: Murphy
Thank GOD.......

This forum is a moderator eater.
Welcome back.

Have you seen CyBerkut around, on the floor anywhere???.......I know he's been drinking heavily.....


hick

I datagorically ceny tuch a shing!

As I understand it from Force10, he's still swamped at work. I'm glad to see he's OK, even if he is here less frequently than he would like.
Posted By: Paradaz

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 03/30/16 10:31 PM

Originally Posted By: Winfield
Originally Posted By: SlipBall
The moderation game is a tough one over there, your better off not being involved any longer...I think many people stay away from that forum because it is too restrictive


Oh indeed, checked there a moment ago to see I have been issued a 1 month ban. It just confirms my suspicion that [edited] legacy lives on with the mentality of that very same controlled environment.

Unable to voice an opinion here with out being banned over there.



I just logged into the ED forums for myself out of curiosity....

"You have been banned for the following reason:
Repeated 1.13 infractions

Date the ban will be lifted: Never"


I guess that could have happened at any point from my last successful login which was November 2015. Also noteworthy is that they are happy for me to still login to the e-shop, so they are happy to take my money but not for me to express an opinion on their products biggrin !

Posted By: Winfield

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 03/30/16 11:17 PM

Originally Posted By: Paradaz
Also noteworthy is that they are happy for me to still login to the e-shop, so they are happy to take my money but not for me to express an opinion on their products biggrin !


Wow, mind you this reiterates my stance that the forum is run with the same mentality as [edited]....

Take the money from the [edited] but god help them if they express an opinion about it.

Posted By: leaf_on_the_wind

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 03/30/16 11:46 PM

Originally Posted By: Winfield
Originally Posted By: Paradaz
Also noteworthy is that they are happy for me to still login to the e-shop, so they are happy to take my money but not for me to express an opinion on their products biggrin !


Wow, mind you this reiterates my stance that the forum is run with the same mentality as [edited]....

Take the money from the [edited] but god help them if they express an opinion about it.



+1 on that
Posted By: Remon

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 03/31/16 10:27 AM

Originally Posted By: Paradaz
Also noteworthy is that they are happy for me to still login to the e-shop, so they are happy to take my money but not for me to express an opinion on their products biggrin !


But then you would complain that they weren't allowing you to buy the game.

EDIT: Misquoted.
Posted By: leaf_on_the_wind

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 03/31/16 11:55 AM

Lol .......... completely missess the point
Posted By: Remon

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 03/31/16 02:04 PM

Originally Posted By: leaf_on_the_wind
Lol .......... completely missess the point


The point was stupid.
Posted By: Frederf

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 03/31/16 06:40 PM

His point is fine.

There are two kids of people at ED Forums, those who have been banned and those without anything worth saying.
Posted By: Winfield

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 04/01/16 03:15 AM

The hitler youth tend to forget that the 1.13 rule cited on the ed forum rules, only emplies to the forums run by Ed. Banning someone for 1.13 for voicing an opinion here at simhq has no clause or refrence to in the list of Ed rules. Yesterday it was for reaching 50% warning points, today it's multiple 1.13 violations. As stated in the official Ed rules, It says that the rules only apply to ed forums, maybe someone there needs to add simhq to the official ed forum rules.

The bit where it says if you feel the ban is unwarranted, pm a moderator is a laugh.

Yet there is no option to pm the moderator as being banned does not allow that option. Makes sense

Moderators and community managers can cite the rules, however they apply them when a someone speaks out in another forum in which their rules do not apply to. Least we have democracy here, not a dictatorship as is run over at Ed
Posted By: Sobek

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 04/01/16 06:21 AM

This is a dictatorship just like any other Forum out there. Want a demonstration? Try talking about the SimHQ business model.

If you want to appeal to a community manager, open a support ticket at ED.
Posted By: Winfield

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 04/01/16 08:21 AM

Originally Posted By: Sobek
This is a dictatorship just like any other Forum out there. Want a demonstration? Try talking about the SimHQ business model.


I find your lack of faith disturbing.

If Paradaz had started this thread in an Ed run forum, i doubt it would have made it past the OP. The thread would have been locked to prevent anyone else expressing their opinion and warning point issued. That is a dictatorship.

Yet here we are in the free world still expressing our opinion in an environment that encourages democracy and frèe speech.
Posted By: Remon

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 04/01/16 08:48 AM

Originally Posted By: Frederf
His point is fine.

There are two kids of people at ED Forums, those who have been banned and those without anything worth saying.


Bravo, you managed to be both wrong and insulting.
Posted By: Winfield

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 04/01/16 09:08 AM

Originally Posted By: Remon
Originally Posted By: Paradaz
Also noteworthy is that they are happy for me to still login to the e-shop, so they are happy to take my money but not for me to express an opinion on their products biggrin !


But then you would complain that they weren't allowing you to buy the game.

EDIT: Misquoted.


Why it pays to actually read the post before commenting on the post.
Posted By: Remon

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 04/01/16 11:50 AM

Originally Posted By: Winfield
Originally Posted By: Remon
Originally Posted By: Paradaz
Also noteworthy is that they are happy for me to still login to the e-shop, so they are happy to take my money but not for me to express an opinion on their products biggrin !


But then you would complain that they weren't allowing you to buy the game.

EDIT: Misquoted.


Why it pays to actually read the post before commenting on the post.


Ditto.
Posted By: Sobek

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 04/01/16 05:57 PM

Originally Posted By: Frederf
There are two kids of people at ED Forums, those who have been banned and those without anything worth saying.


Since you're not banned, does that put you in the 2nd category then?
Posted By: Eddie

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 04/01/16 07:53 PM

Originally Posted By: Sobek
Originally Posted By: Frederf
There are two kids of people at ED Forums, those who have been banned and those without anything worth saying.


Since you're not banned, does that put you in the 2nd category then?


He said "have been banned", not "are banned".
Posted By: Frederf

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 04/01/16 11:16 PM

I had the good fortune for being executed early enough that I was resurrected. But I have a permanent 80% warning which means I can say "Hi, nice weather we're having" and it looks like I might be Hitler anyway.
Posted By: Paradaz

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 04/01/16 11:44 PM

Originally Posted By: Frederf
But I have a permanent 80% warning which means I can say "Hi, nice weather we're having" .......


That's probably an offence on the ED boards because 'nice' is subjective, therefore an opinion and may not go down too well.

I think that your only saving grace is that weather is subject to change, and that may strike a chord with ED as they tend to remind everyone it's their motto/caveat because they are incapable of planning anything properly. biggrin
Posted By: Force10

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 04/02/16 02:21 AM

Winfield,

That's enough of the Nazi/Holocaust comparisons.

It's a tad over the top and getting tiresome with how many times you're using it. We encourage different opinions here...but you need to be a little more creative and express your opinion without dragging PWEC material in your posts.

I went through and edited your posts that have used the references...I don't want to have to do it again.
Posted By: Nate

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 04/02/16 02:32 AM

"Once more unto the breach.." says He.

Welcome back Force10. How do you put up with us? smile

Nate
Posted By: Winfield

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 04/02/16 02:58 AM

Originally Posted By: Force10
Winfield,

That's enough of the Nazi/Holocaust comparisons.

It's a tad over the top and getting tiresome with how many times you're using it. We encourage different opinions here...but you need to be a little more creative and express your opinion without dragging PWEC material in your posts.

I went through and edited your posts that have used the references...I don't want to have to do it again.


duly noted, i'll take a different approach
Posted By: LOF_Rugg

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 04/02/16 10:50 AM

Originally Posted By: Remon
Originally Posted By: Frederf
His point is fine.

There are two kids of people at ED Forums, those who have been banned and those without anything worth saying.


Bravo, you managed to be both wrong and insulting.

Sometimes the truth isn't palatable. To some. However his quote was factual.

Originally Posted By: Sobek
This is a dictatorship just like any other Forum out there.

Head over to one of the forums I moderate (CombatAce/LOF). I'll give you a thousand dollars if you can find anywhere that I've "moderated" what someone had to say. I like to let people say what they like and if their comment is stupid then the rest of the readers know exactly what they're getting into by having a discussion with that person. Because as far as I'm concerned what you have to say has as much right to be said as what I have to say. And if I don't agree with you then guess what? I disagree. I don't need a safe place from your words. I don't fear criticism. Then again, I'm an adult. Take that for what you will.

Quote:
If you want to appeal to a community manager, open a support ticket at ED.

Hahahahahahahahahaha! You made my day! You should do standup.
Posted By: Sobek

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 04/03/16 08:21 AM

Originally Posted By: LOF_Rugg

Originally Posted By: Sobek
If you want to appeal to a community manager, open a support ticket at ED.

Hahahahahahahahahaha! You made my day! You should do standup.


Not sure what's funny about that.
Posted By: leaf_on_the_wind

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 04/03/16 11:55 AM

Everything , is what is funny about that

Say something that ED does not like on SOMEONES ELSES FORUM and get banned at ED forums ......
Then raise a trchnical support ticket to ask to be un-banned on ED , I find it funny
Posted By: Art_J

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 04/03/16 11:58 AM

Originally Posted By: LOF_Rugg
Originally Posted By: Remon
Originally Posted By: Frederf
His point is fine.

There are two kids of people at ED Forums, those who have been banned and those without anything worth saying.


Bravo, you managed to be both wrong and insulting.

Sometimes the truth isn't palatable. To some. However his quote was factual.



How is it supposed to be factual? ED forum is still the first place to go when one needs to learn how things work in specific aircraft, how to deal with all dreaded tech issues of the damned sim; and the first place to look for mods & addons (LOF being the only exception with its collection of Tom's skins). SimHQ DCS section is almost dead by comparison. Are all people posting the above not having "anything worth saying"?

Not a modder myself, but whenever anyone @ ED forum asks about something I know, I answer and given my rep points, I guess for many folks what I say it actually worth something. Never been banned, because I simply avoid inconvenient topics (yep, my very first post over there, comprising modest opinion about constant Belsimtek delays, got me a few instant warning points right at my face :D). When I want to read some heated debates about these, I come here.

I agree SimHQ is the only place where ED mudslinging contest (sometimes justified, sometimes not) is allowed, and rightfully so, but I find it puzzling/naive why some think the same rule should apply to ED forum. Any software company forum mods will use banhammer for silencing negative PR posters and that's not "hitler'ism", but rather doing their job. Their forum, their money - their rules and policy. Applies to all PC game devs or publishers. What do You expect? If one wants more open debate, one has to go to non-dev places like over here.

The only thing that ain't right is banning over there for things said over here, IF that was really the case.
Posted By: leaf_on_the_wind

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 04/03/16 12:19 PM

Yep ............ but the point is .....

If you say something that ED does not like on another forum, so not ED forums they will ban you on ED forums

see ED rules here
http://forums.eagle.ru/rules.php#en

1.13 Users using other public forums to spread damaging and false information regarding DCS and Eagle Dynamics will forfeit thier posting rights here.


Technically no one should be banned via this rule , as the retards cannot even spell their correctly


Posted By: Hellfire257

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 04/03/16 01:37 PM

That rule is exactly why I do all my complaining under another account name. There's pages of it, pages I tell you! And they don't know it's me. Gives me a hearty chuckle, it does.

I really hope this triggers a wild goose chase, because it's not true at all.
Posted By: Winfield

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 04/03/16 01:54 PM

Originally Posted By: Art_J

yep, my very first post over there, comprising modest opinion about constant Belsimtek delays, got me a few instant warning points right at my face :D).


That warrants 1.13 right there. Instant 4 week ban

Originally Posted By: Art_J
Any software company forum mods will use banhammer for silencing negative PR posters and that's not "hitler'ism",


No thats kim jong il'ism

Originally Posted By: Art_J
The only thing that ain't right is banning over there for things said over here, IF that was really the case.


Entirely the case, Should I post up my "support ticket" and the response, then you will believe that to be the case. Seeing as 1.3 rule Administrative actions against forum members are not subject to public discussion, is only in context to discussion on the ED forums, no clause states public administrator action discussion at other forums. No doubt an ED moderator or snitch will interpret it as falling under 1.13 none the less.
Posted By: Winfield

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 04/07/16 10:00 AM

More proof in the pudding

http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?p=2735675#post2735675

Yet another paid DLC campaign announcement.

Special mention to the pre 1.5 release screen shots......Author is right, It is a museum relic, even the caucus being a museum relic.

Every tom dick and harry are slapping together half baked campaigns to earn themselves the "3rd party dev" or ED Associate title and score a few green squares in the process.

Both jets have been out for some time now, so long that it's taken a user to slap together a campaign and boast that it will be available in the DCS store.

Most noteworthy, is now ED are supporting paid mods.

So now we have paid campaigns and paid mods are the new focus

Note the update from the producer

http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=164334

particularly this line..

Quote:
a first look at a massive texture overhaul DLC of the Caucasus map done by Starway. More information on this will be coming.
Posted By: komemiute

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 04/07/16 11:53 AM

I usually try to avoid pointless discussions but I read some of the latest comments and I'm puzzled.

ED makes war simulations. While non of their products is perfect, we're talking about military grade stuff.
(Source: I work for Military Airforce Training Sims and what I see at work it's often times not as good as DCS, in various departments.)

These products allow normal people to run on a home pc, very realistic simulations, with a very nice graphics and supporting the widest range of Hardware.

Admittedly the military nature of these simulations make for a somewhat dry experience, in absentia of a dynamic campaign generator- putting in the hands of the users a very powerful editor that allow very fine control of the Synthetic Environment.

Whatever is not there is allegedly in development- giving users a good prospect for the next years to come that more and more stuff will be available, and what's there is receiving updates.

I've seen many players complaining about the lack of stuff to do- and this alone baffles me a bit.
I agree wholeheartedly that a Dynamic Campaign editor would be a good idea, no matter the level of implementation (but of course the better it is, the better the results); but on the other hands lots of users are creating good free stuff, from scripts, to liveries to ... well everything.

Some of these products also allows a high degree of control- so they can be tailored or simplified with the given editor.

Now- the pay-for campaigns released so far have been cheap (around the price of a ticket for the movies) offering a much better ratio of "hours of game to currency unit".

I've actually read several reviews that shine a good light on these.

How is allowing users to make more stuff to do for players to enjoy a bad thing?

The risk is buying a wrong/poor product?

Well, isn't it the history of videogames since the dawn of time?
Can't we see that maybe there's also good stuff beside obvious less than stellar?

In a nutshell, why so negative?

*sigh* Please, let's just try to avoid hyperboles and let's try to have a simple, productive, constructive discussion.

Please?

Over.
Posted By: SlipBall

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 04/07/16 12:25 PM

Yeah after all they are there to make money for their investors and keep us happy with new available products...all in all they are doing a good job of it in IMHO
Posted By: Sobek

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 04/07/16 01:24 PM

Originally Posted By: SlipBall
Yeah after all they are there to make money for their investors


What investors?
Posted By: ST0RM

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 04/07/16 01:49 PM

Ok, so Winfield's gripe is about paying for campaigns/DLCs? Or that ED supports it?
Either way, why would you condemn someone for spending their time on something and asking for money for it? You have the power to say yes or no, when buying it or not.

What have you done to better the sim or the community following it? And "paying my money for X product" doesn't count. We've all done it, knowing the risks.

I do agree, in that I'm not happy with the progress of things, but I'm powerless to change that. So I shrug and move on and wait.
Posted By: GrayGhost

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 04/07/16 01:55 PM

You must just love working for free smile

Originally Posted By: Winfield
particularly this line..

Quote:
a first look at a massive texture overhaul DLC of the Caucasus map done by Starway. More information on this will be coming.
Posted By: Nate

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 04/07/16 01:56 PM

Originally Posted By: Winfield
Most noteworthy, is now ED are supporting paid mods.

So now we have paid campaigns and paid mods are the new focus

Note the update from the producer

http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=164334

particularly this line..

Quote:
a first look at a massive texture overhaul DLC of the Caucasus map done by Starway. More information on this will be coming.


Please point out where this is said to be pay for mod?

EDIT:- Apologies, I didn't note the DLC bit, this does suggest it is payware.

Nate
Posted By: komemiute

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 04/07/16 02:01 PM

Originally Posted By: Nate
Originally Posted By: Winfield
Most noteworthy, is now ED are supporting paid mods.

So now we have paid campaigns and paid mods are the new focus

Note the update from the producer

http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=164334

particularly this line..

Quote:
a first look at a massive texture overhaul DLC of the Caucasus map done by Starway. More information on this will be coming.


Please point out where this is said to be pay for mod?

Nate


I think that a person that single handedly improve the textures of the WHOLE map deserves money.
I'd pay for that, see no evil in it.
Posted By: Jedi Master

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 04/07/16 02:28 PM

And, as they're just textures, you're free to NOT buy it but continue to play online with others who have and suffer no issues, just like plane skins.

I don't know if I'd bother to buy something like that or not, honestly, but I see no reason to demand it free.



The Jedi Master
Posted By: komemiute

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 04/07/16 02:36 PM

Originally Posted By: Jedi Master
And, as they're just textures, you're free to NOT buy it but continue to play online with others who have and suffer no issues, just like plane skins.

I don't know if I'd bother to buy something like that or not, honestly, but I see no reason to demand it free.



The Jedi Master


The ground polygons of the Caucasus map are starting to annoy me, especially after tasting the Nevada.
I don't believe I'd think twice before buying something that finally improves it a bit- but actually I'd have to notice the improvements in a direct Screenshots comparison.

I'm curious, now that we talk about payware, on that Ship-side DLC incoming... Any news on that?
Posted By: Apache600

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 04/07/16 03:15 PM

@ Winfield, Thanks for the advertisement!

Now, moving on ... If you don't like my campaign, the premise of it, or what it stands for, then don't purchase it. But I believe that there are some out there who would be interested in this, and I made this for them. And I couldn't be happier with the positive feedback, and excitement from the community, that I've seen so far.

Also, ED / DCS did not announce it. I did. Consider it coincidence that my announcement comes after other DLC campaigns have been announced, and it also was announced during the height of this particular thread. Would have I liked to have been the first DLC to be announced? Well yes, of course, but as you've pointed out in your post, those "pre 1.5 release screen shots" allude to the fact that I've been working on this for quite a long time.
This is not ED's work, nor is this Belsimtek's work. This is my work. A middle aged (still trying to fool myself in thinking i'm not quite there yet), married home-owner, with a kid on the way, who has a full-time job. I've spent countless hours of my free time getting this campaign together, and making it something special.
To say that this is a "half baked" product after spending 25 seconds reading through my post ... is a rather ambitious statement. Should I, or anyone else who's tried to add to the library of DCS, apologize to you personally for not spending our efforts working on a project that doesn't directly coincide with your wants in DCS?

I really enjoy flying the Mig-15 and the F-86. I think they are fantastically well modeled and that Belsimtek did an outstanding job with them. When these planes hit the DCS market, I had always wanted to see more single player options for them. I had to face the fact that my Multiplayer Online flying with these two planes resulted in a whole lot of kills racked up for the other players on my behalf. I regularly ended up as a smoking hole in the ground smile So when it came to the single player environment, I decided that I wanted to do something about it. I didn't want to wait around for something that might not happen for months to come.
That may be a reason why so many 3rd party developers are out there. The amount of time it would take one group (ED) to make all the platforms that are available is just not possible. There's simply not enough time in the days/weeks/months to work all these possibilities.

I think ED has been doing a great job with the resources they have. They have an amazing product, and they're doing some fantastic work to improve and expand it. And I think it's a testament to how good of a product they have that 3rd party developers have spent a lot of their time and effort adding their own niche to the DCS world and expanding it that much more.
Posted By: Paradaz

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 04/07/16 03:44 PM

Not if it means having to create patches, game updates and moves resources away from all the UNFINISHED content that some of us have already paid for.

There isn't a problem with people creating content/campaigns for DCS World at all, however and as the thread subject suggests its a concern if ED move their focus away from the continued development of the world in general to focusing on the creation and/or suppport of campaigns simply because its a quick profit.

I think this is 4 campaigns in 3 months now......what news or progress have we seen for DCSWorld (not 3rd party modules) in the same timeframe other than 'progress continues'? We still haven't even got working missions in v2.0 yet but ED are happy to feed us payware campaigns that will only ever function in one of their current branches........until the point they need to put additional resources into making all these new campaigns compatible with 2.5.
Posted By: Jerkzilla

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 04/07/16 05:35 PM

Dude, during this time that they've been releasing new campaigns, they've also been updating the game more often than they have in, like, the previous two years combined. There is also no god damn way they haven't developed a pipeline for merging these new campaigns in. So while it might have taken some resources away from other aspects when they introduced support for this way back, saying new campaigns take any real resources away from FMs or ASMs or other features now is a very tenuous argument.

Rather than a new focus, it's just more stuff to get money from.
Posted By: SlipBall

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 04/07/16 06:04 PM

Originally Posted By: Sobek
Originally Posted By: SlipBall
Yeah after all they are there to make money for their investors


What investors?



You are right!...but I guess THEN the workers involved both employees and third party, could be considered as the investors of their time and talents exitstageleft
Posted By: Jedi Master

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 04/07/16 08:12 PM

New textures will NOT change the meshes on the existing Black Sea map, so temper those expectations.

You can paint your 1984 Mercedes the same paint color as a 2016 Mercedes but it's not going to have the lines of a 2016 Mercedes. wink




The Jedi Master
Posted By: cichlidfan

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 04/07/16 08:45 PM

The DLC's author has a number of terrain mods available so it is easy to get a preview of what the potential for the DLC is.
Posted By: BlackLion213

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 04/07/16 11:29 PM

Originally Posted By: Paradaz
Not if it means having to create patches, game updates and moves resources away from all the UNFINISHED content that some of us have already paid for.

There isn't a problem with people creating content/campaigns for DCS World at all, however and as the thread subject suggests its a concern if ED move their focus away from the continued development of the world in general to focusing on the creation and/or suppport of campaigns simply because its a quick profit.

I think this is 4 campaigns in 3 months now......what news or progress have we seen for DCSWorld (not 3rd party modules) in the same timeframe other than 'progress continues'? We still haven't even got working missions in v2.0 yet but ED are happy to feed us payware campaigns that will only ever function in one of their current branches........until the point they need to put additional resources into making all these new campaigns compatible with 2.5.


So I'm pretty confused here....

ED has one module in Beta status (Bf109K-4) and Belsimtek, which is the only 3rd party to release multiple modules, has 1/4 modules in Beta (the Mi-8 and it certainly doesn't seem to be a Beta - its awesome).

Also, there are 2 brand new campaigns for NTTR and a total of 4 campaigns for the Caucasus (1 was released before NTTR, 2 user created campaigns, and the last is for the Ka-50).

So what is all the "unfinished work" that has been paid for?

Are you recommending that ED halt the work or release of every 3rd party till all the existing 3rd party modules are out of Beta (like VEAO and Aviodev)?

Are you saying that others who create content cannot release anything till everything else is done? We shouldn't get to try anything new till DCS 2.5 is out? Polychop shouldn't release the Gazelle until 2.5 since there could be a problem that requires a patch?

Is it terrible that content is released for our entertainment while we wait for DCS2.5, etc. What about the fact that many of the new features we want are already part of 1.5 and 2.0. I think it would have sucked if ED held off releasing DCS2 with NTTR and the new NTTR campaigns just so they could release 2.5 as the first look at new maps and new content. Why wait so long?

All of this sounds remarkably nuts, is this what you are recommending?

Please fill me in...

-Nick
Posted By: Force10

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 04/08/16 12:27 AM

Originally Posted By: BlackLion213


So what is all the "unfinished work" that has been paid for?



I guess one could argue the DCS WWII project?

- Spitfire
- P-47D
- Me.262A1
- The Normandy Map

Keeping in mind...over 400 people payed $100 or more 3 years ago.

I see you didn't mention the Nevada map...are we now supposed to consider content listed as Alpha "finished"?

I'm not saying I 100% agree with the original topic...it just seemed you neglected to mention some things that are hardly finished.
Posted By: Paradaz

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 04/08/16 12:28 AM

Originally Posted By: "BlackLion213"
So what is all the "unfinished work" that has been paid for?

Are you recommending that ED halt the work or release of every 3rd party till all the existing 3rd party modules are out of Beta (like VEAO and Aviodev)?


Is that a serious question? It had nothing to do with 3rd party content.......it had everything to do with ED taking far too many projects on with resources spread far too thinly, to the point where new platforms and content is announced regularly and not a single product is ever completed.

Let's not pretend for one second that ED planned to have the 1.5 and 2.0 branches in concurrent development.....that happened because ED couldn't plan a piss up in a brewery and rushed out the NTTR map without all the features because it was already 5 years late. Releasing it half-baked meant development was split in two.

Does the WW2 content also ring any bells? Already well over a year late and no real signs of anything going on......at least we can look forward to the paywhere carrier soon if nothing else - hopefully they'll also give us the highly sought after functionality that will allow us to walk around it first-person, said no-one ever!
Posted By: BlackLion213

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 04/08/16 12:43 AM

Originally Posted By: Force10

I guess one could argue the DCS WWII project?

- Spitfire
- P-47D
- Me.262A1
- The Normandy Map

Keeping in mind...over 400 people payed $100 or more 3 years ago.


They also paid that money to someone else and ED picked up the pieces when it fell apart. They also paid into a Kickstarter project, which is effectively a diffused version of "angel funding". There is no guarantee of a return and the majority of projects like this do not make it very far. It's great that the project is still moving forward and many parts of the project may be done this year (3 out of 4 on your list). But actually getting a return from something like Kickstarter is more of a bonus than anything else IMHO.

Originally Posted By: Force10


I see you didn't mention the Nevada map...are we now supposed to consider content listed as Alpha "finished"?

I'm not saying I 100% agree with the original topic...it just seemed you neglected to mention some things that are hardly finished.


NTTR has planned upgrades, but I'd hardly call it unfinished. As a customer who bought it, I have no complaints and I'm not aware of any specific limitations for using the map. I would like the "merge" to be finished, but I'm having a lot of fun with DCS nonetheless. There may be more features for NTTR in the future, but what we have now is excellent.

I think too many people prefer to see the glass half-empty, even when its mostly full. Thats my take.

-Nick
Posted By: Force10

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 04/08/16 12:51 AM

Originally Posted By: BlackLion213

They also paid that money to someone else and ED picked up the pieces when it fell apart.


ED was listed as a partner on the project. The money now resides in the code and models that ED has.
Posted By: BlackLion213

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 04/08/16 01:01 AM

Okey dokey.

-Nick
Posted By: Paradaz

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 04/08/16 07:41 AM

Originally Posted By: BlackLion213

I think too many people prefer to see the glass half-empty, even when its mostly full. Thats my take.

-Nick


In my opinion you're onto something, its just that you have it the wrong way around. ED have the opportunity to pull off something really special however they are not even close to fulfilling their potential.

What doesn't help is the community who readily accept anything they just throw out......as for suggesting that the 'glass is mostly full' at this point in time is a perfect example and it's no wonder why ED continue to start new modules, announce new content and leave everything else unfinished if they're getting feedback like that and assume they're doing everything just fine.

The glass is most definitely half-full because ED have a lot to finish off and a long way to go before the 'World' really starts coming together......it's still a jigsaw puzzle with two corners and half of of the pieces missing - we still can't really see what their vision is because there are lots of areas that only have 2 or 3 pieces connected together and nothing linking them to each other.

Split development branches with differing functionality
Random mix of airframes
Ground radar
Multiseat
Integration of theatres
Era specific content

I could go on.......but these are key parts of the puzzle that just aren't linked at the moment. Yet people seem happy for campaign after campaign that will only work in one of the Dev branches for starters. I want to see progress in the things that really matter.....not having ED constantly providing little patches and updates that only support new content.
Posted By: Penguran

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 04/08/16 07:44 AM

So now we're getting textures DLC? What the hell is this? We pay 60 EUR per plane
and now we can't even have a supposedly "free" map that belongs in 2016 without paying even more?


This DLC thing is getting ridiculous.
Get your #%&*$# together ED.



Ohh no, I posted a "negative" opinion. What are you gonna do now? Trace my IP and ban me? Neg rep me?
You are a JOKE!
Posted By: komemiute

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 04/08/16 07:47 AM

I see. Could you do an exercise and re-write that without being passive/aggressive?
Just a thought...
Posted By: Paradaz

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 04/08/16 08:31 AM

Yep, and I've pretty much bought everything they and 3rd parties have released with exception to 3 aircraft, however I won't be buying any more content until things improve.

I can't see the value anymore in pre-release/alpha/beta payware because it never gets completed.

There really is no argument for 'what if money stops flowing'.....through decent planning ED shouldn't know exactly if something is worth starting, resources required and time needed however everything they have ever done falls drastically short in every respect. I'm not particularly thrilled to bankroll ED under the guise of new platforms if it's actually funding previous content that wasn't planned properly - which in my opinion is very likely what is happening.
Posted By: Penguran

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 04/08/16 08:41 AM

Originally Posted By: komemiute
I see. Could you do an exercise and re-write that without being passive/aggressive?
Just a thought...


That's DLC.

You gotta pay me for that.
Posted By: komemiute

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 04/08/16 08:46 AM

See? not that hard- also more likely to get an answer...

I'd say it's not confirmed that it's a Pay-for DLC.
Even if it was we have no info on how much, and in any case it's always optional.

The quality of the man's work is really high, so if it was in the range of 5$-9$ I'd be happy to actually buy it.

Plus as anyone else noticed, it's just textures so not having them it's largely a non-issue.

If it was a 3D-rework of the map it'd be a different topic.
Cheers,
stay positive.
Posted By: Force10

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 04/08/16 03:46 PM

Originally Posted By: Troll

If people failed to support DCS and ED, development would've stopped years ago. Money talks, ya kno'! smile


Not sure this is entirely true. Some of the content we see at the consumer level is just regurgitated stuff from their private contracts thats worked for public consumption. It explains why a lot of puzzle pieces don't fit.

Before Nevada was announced as coming to DCS and nobody knew anything...if ED had polled their customers with a fill in the blank on what theater they would like to see next...Nevada would have received exactly zero mentions. I can't imagine anyone would have said "How about you spend 5 years on a map where no conflict took place...ever."

Obviously, many folks are happy with Nevada. That can more likely be attributed to being tired of flying in the Black Sea for 15 years...and just being happy to have somewhere else to fly. It's not a conflict area most customers wanting to simulate being a wartime pilot would pick.
Posted By: Johnny_Redd

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 04/08/16 05:49 PM

Originally Posted By: Troll
DCS is not the first flightsim with a dedicated NTTR theatre. I for one thought NTTR was a stroke of genius! Why not go where the real guys go to simulate war, in the sim? Makes perfect sense to me.


A stroke of genius? C'mon now. If you were given a choice of NTTR or the Persian gulf/Iraq I'm 100% positive you would chose the gulf. I'm 100% positive 100% of customers would chose the gulf. A hell of a lot more revenue for the developers than NTTR. I'm 100% positive there would be more customers purchasing the gulf than NTTR.
Posted By: Force10

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 04/08/16 06:01 PM

Originally Posted By: Troll


This whole notion that if we stop paying ED, things will get better, is a logical fallacy, IMO.



Iv'e just stopped blindly handing over money to developers for Alpha's that may take years to finish after they have your money. After they collect your cash...there really isn't any incentive to finish in a timely manner.

As far as Nevada goes...DCS World is already a simulation of what the real guys do...having a simulation of what the real guys simulate is a layer of redundancy that doesn't appeal to me.
Posted By: Paradaz

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 04/08/16 07:08 PM

So if the money stopped rolling in now for ED do you think they they should be obligated to finish what they started.......or just down tools because they've already done more than enough?
Posted By: Nate

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 04/08/16 07:26 PM

The Obligation remains, of course it does. The argument is that the Ability to fulfil the obligations may be adversely affected with fewer resource available to apply. Using your example of no more cash coming in, I'd imagine any cash reserve being eaten up quite quickly.

Would you not agree?

Nate
Posted By: Frederf

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 04/08/16 08:00 PM

Originally Posted By: Johnny_Redd
A hell of a lot more revenue for the developers than NTTR.


I'm sure NTTR was a great choice in terms of sales. Thing is, you're not the customer.
Posted By: Johnny_Redd

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 04/08/16 08:04 PM

Originally Posted By: Frederf
Originally Posted By: Johnny_Redd
A hell of a lot more revenue for the developers than NTTR.


I'm sure NTTR was a great choice in terms of sales. Thing is, you're not the customer.

but the gulf/Iraq would have been a better choice in terma of sales, which was my point. I'm well aware a lot of folk purchased NTTR. I would venture that those sales were down to the fact it was the first map to be released. The old map being the only one for, well forever.
I'm not the customer? please explain
Posted By: ST0RM

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 04/08/16 08:32 PM

Originally Posted By: Troll
Originally Posted By: Johnny_Redd

I'm not the customer? please explain


He means that ED works on military contracts as well.



I've been saying this about NTTR since before it's release. No one listens and keeps thinking they're the only customer.

DCS is a byproduct of mil simulation contracts.
Posted By: Paradaz

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 04/08/16 08:56 PM

Originally Posted By: Nate
The Obligation remains, of course it does. The argument is that the Ability to fulfil the obligations may be adversely affected with fewer resource available to apply. Using your example of no more cash coming in, I'd imagine any cash reserve being eaten up quite quickly.

Would you not agree?

Nate


Sure I agree......now we're getting to the crux of the issue here. No business should even entertain a project unless they can see it through and make a profit at the end. If ED are starting projects with only enough funds/resources to reach the half way point then they're even more incompetent than I first thought. Their early access mechanism is like an uncontrolled kickstarter......at least with Kickstarters a target has to be reached before it is 'allowed' to continue.

It does seem like they are biting off more than they can chew and rely on early access to generate funds - probably for other areas of work......and this would also help explain why they are so far behind on everything and why they are prepared to undertake so many concurrent projects.

On a positive note for once, the latest newsletter is great.......some news on actual progress for once - the first newsletter in about 5 weeks that actually includes some detail.

Posted By: BlackLion213

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 04/08/16 09:47 PM

Originally Posted By: Paradaz
Originally Posted By: BlackLion213

I think too many people prefer to see the glass half-empty, even when its mostly full. Thats my take.

-Nick


In my opinion you're onto something, its just that you have it the wrong way around. ED have the opportunity to pull off something really special however they are not even close to fulfilling their potential.

What doesn't help is the community who readily accept anything they just throw out......


No, I definitely have it right. wink

If you spend all of your time complaining about whats not, you cannot appreciate what is already available. I am as excited about carrier ops and the F-14 as anyone could be, but I am thoroughly enjoying the MiG-21Bis, Mi-8MTV2, MiG-15Bis, F-86F, etc. I love these modules and they offer far beyond what I ever expected out of a flight sim (especially since I stopped playing them in 2002 and heard that the genre was dead). Nothing is ever going to be perfect, but why suffer and not enjoy what we have? I don't readily accept things, but I am very happy with their work (compared to say Aerosoft P3D add-ons, which I was not happy with, save for their F-14). Better to enjoy life than spend so much time complaining about how something could be better - especially since it is getting better so soon. You saw the Normandy map screen-shots? biggrin How about the uber-sophisticated engine modelling for the F-5E!

Also, you definitely don't forward the genre or improve ED's work (or 3rd parties) by saying the things that you do - you simply become background noise.
I'll give you a direct example: One of my practice partners has a much lower threshold for complaining than the rest of us. Everytime he does a case, he complains and complains about the same issues. I listened to him the first time (as did others), but now - no one pays any attention. He gets things fixed far slower and less often than anyone else in the department. The rest of us get our problems fixed in a timely basis and administration listens, but not to him. Because a complaint from him carries no weight - every time he talks he complains. So a complaint is effectively baseline - everything must be fine right? wink

If you want people to listen and effect change, then you must be respectful and generally nice. If you rarely complain, people will listen when you do.

I tend to be nice on forums, but on several occasions I have posted or PM'd a 3rd party (or ED) about a problem or idea. I have always received a response and on several occasions, changes have actually been made to address the issue.

When you say things like your brewery comment, you immediately relegate yourself to the ignore category.

So please help instead of impede and please enjoy your time instead of languishing in disappointment. Life is too short and this is a hobby.

-Nick
Posted By: leaf_on_the_wind

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 04/08/16 11:18 PM

Originally Posted By: Force10


Iv'e just stopped blindly handing over money to developers for Alpha's that may take years to finish after they have your money. After they collect your cash...there really isn't any incentive to finish in a timely manner.



^ this times a thousand

Once they have gotten your money .... where is the drive / impetus to "finish" ?

Say for example you wanted to work done to your house ... erm painting for example

Do you pay the painter all the money up front and hope it completes the job ?

I have been purchasing software for 35 years , in ye olde days you bought a physical product that was finished

Now because of digital distribution very early alpha / beta software is being paid for up front with no real guarantee of completion

Now if ED / 3rd parties were to stand by their product .....
eg we release a beta now , but we will have it feature compelete in x months ........ or your money BACK
That would be a great thing to behold, it shows honesty , proper planning and commitment to their customers
Posted By: Winfield

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 04/09/16 01:37 AM

Originally Posted By: ST0RM
I do agree, in that I'm not happy with the progress of things, but I'm powerless to change that. So I shrug and move on and wait.


So keep shrugging and move right along, nothing for you to see here

Originally Posted By: GrayGhost
You must just love working for free smile


#oldline You earn 1 green rep square, borrow this one from Sobek?

Originally Posted By: komemiute
I think that a person that single handedly improve the textures of the WHOLE map deserves money.
I'd pay for that, see no evil in it.


You have missed the point completely, where did I state I am having a go at textures? Campaign after Campaign is the new focus as the thread states. Yet now ED are taking on user made mods and selling it as DLC. If you want to speak solely regarding textures, then ok, i'll take this challenge.

The person releasing these textures started way back long before 1.5 and 2.0. He changed the ground textures of the map to suit the 4 seasons. Nevada wasn't even in testing stages when the desert scheme he released was available. Even with new colour textures, it's still the same old boring map.

ED could employ this guy full time to design and build textures and get SoH map out faster, or any other map out rather than waste time working on textures for a near 20 year old map. What about buildings? Lots of work done with ground texture, no work on buildings.....waste of time and energy spent on the Caucus IMO

but since you only raised 1 mod with out looking at the bigger picture regarding DLC.....

Originally Posted By: Apache600
@ Winfield, Thanks for the advertisement!

More than welcome!

Now down to business....
5-6 months working on a campaign for 2 aircraft that don't fit in with the 4 gen fighters nor the ground units they will be shooting?

Mod DLC being also part of the new focus, your time would have been better spent petitioning old mate with the textures to build a Korean theatre, Because DCS Vietnam is simply not Vietnam. 5 months of adding units, you could have spent 1 of those months looking for someone in the mods section who is good with units to re-texture what is already in the encyclopedia and create Timeline specific units rather than search for voice overs.

A rather pointless campaign, yet being a study sim, i'm sure some user is looking forward to seeing how their sabre goes against a few T-90's or T-72's, then make 20 threads about "if" it would happen in real life whilst posting 30 or so youtube video's. That or wonder how it handles a few IR missiles etc it is a study sim after all (feel free to add to this paragraph in your reply) So until the airframe fits the theatre and units no i won't be buying your campaign. Don't stress though, a few others will no doubt, even if it is shelved like the hawk and 101, argument campaign etc etc

A campaign is played once then put on the back burner.....Build a dynamic campaign and maybe, just maybe you will have my attention.

It seems ED are more than happy to endorse into their study sim user made mods which most (or all) came about because ED were too slow to develop and release their EDGE engine. Many requests have been made for new units to be added to the enclopedia yet have fallen on deaf ears for years.....and now it looks set in stone consumers will now need to pay for these. Just another feeble excuse to make money when it is the developers responsibility to listen to the consumers and read the forum requests. So in a campaign scenario (in the not to distant future), a user makes a campaign with the Sabre or 15, adds in units that are timeline based which will be DLC, consumers will then need to purchase both the campaign, and the unit mods to play the campaign?? this is where it is heading.

There are only so many times I can play a campaign set in caucus regardless of airframe, the same radio channels, the same routes, the same mountains, it becomes more than obvious where the enemy units will be placed.
Posted By: Nate

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 04/09/16 02:37 AM

Originally Posted By: Paradaz
Originally Posted By: Nate
The Obligation remains, of course it does. The argument is that the Ability to fulfil the obligations may be adversely affected with fewer resource available to apply. Using your example of no more cash coming in, I'd imagine any cash reserve being eaten up quite quickly.

Would you not agree?

Nate


Sure I agree......now we're getting to the crux of the issue here. No business should even entertain a project unless they can see it through and make a profit at the end. If ED are starting projects with only enough funds/resources to reach the half way point then they're even more incompetent than I first thought.


I see, so no business ever makes a venture unless they have all the funds in place before hand. Is that your conjecture?

Nate
Posted By: Frederf

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 04/09/16 04:27 AM

That's the normal practice. If ED is operating on thin margins, speculation, shell games, and similar voodoo they have my sympathy and suspicion in equal measure. I think we can all agree that flight simulation isn't an easy money broad market business.
Posted By: Stratos

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 04/09/16 05:47 AM

Maybe I missed something important, but it was said that the new textures will be payware?
Posted By: zaelu

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 04/09/16 06:13 AM

Originally Posted By: Stratos
Maybe I missed something important, but it was said that the new textures will be payware?


I don't think so.

http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=2735909&postcount=1

Quote:
In addition to showing off the Gazelle, we will also be providing a first look at a massive texture overhaul DLC of the Caucasus map done by Starway. More information on this will be coming.
Posted By: Sobek

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 04/09/16 07:32 AM

Originally Posted By: Winfield
Originally Posted By: GrayGhost
You must just love working for free smile

#oldline You earn 1 green rep square, borrow this one from Sobek?


Do you have a crush on me? rofl

But the question still stands. Do you love working your ass off and getting nothing in return?
Posted By: Winfield

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 04/09/16 09:53 AM

Originally Posted By: Sobek
Originally Posted By: Winfield
Originally Posted By: GrayGhost
You must just love working for free smile

#oldline You earn 1 green rep square, borrow this one from Sobek?


Do you have a crush on me? rofl


But the question still stands. Do you love working your ass off and getting nothing in return?


I am sure I have seen you use that line a few times,

Mods were always a "contribution" to the community.

I have contributed my share to mods over the years and have asked nothing in return. None of my work however has been released for DCS world (other than missions hosted on private servers), you will find my most recent works in Arma3.

Yes I work long hours both for the man as well as in my spare time working on projects that are community based and free for people to enjoy them. So yes I work long hours and get nothing in return, nor do I expect anything in return. I do like feedback both constructive and trolling for a bite feedback, keeps me keen and up to date with the latest and greatest 1 liners and ones that remind me of 20 years ago like "Do you have a crush on me?"

Working for the man pays my way, seeing people share and use mods I have made and "free" multiplayer missions I design for general use is enough for me.
Posted By: Sobek

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 04/09/16 10:14 AM

Good for you.

Still, if somebody invested so much time into a project that he deems it worth somenone else's money, why should he not be allowed to charge for it? You guys are the first to scream "IP rights!" when Tango comes here to bang his drum, what's different in this case?
Posted By: Nate

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 04/09/16 10:22 AM

Originally Posted By: Frederf
That's the normal practice.


I'm not so sure, if it were, things like business loans wouldn't exist.

Nate
Posted By: Winfield

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 04/09/16 10:44 AM

Originally Posted By: Sobek
You guys are the first to scream "IP rights!" when Tango comes here to bang his drum, what's different in this case?


There is a huge difference, In Tango's case the "man" was Aviodev, it was never a "free" module, Tango was working for "the man" not for recognition of free work

ED must be the first developer to put forward community made mods and sell them off as DLC. I can't think of any other developer who has taken user made mods and sell them as DLC.

Arma3 actually held a contest called Make Arma Not War where community based mods were put forward and voted on and place holders got cash payments.

BMS haven't asked a cent for their years of hard work with Falcon 4.0

Even community made mods on this very site people haven't asked for money. If ED want to endorse DLC, put these people on the payrole and get them updating the Encyclopedia with better units, give them the tools to create or contribute to other maps for the community. Arma3 released all their tools to the community at no charge, they even have an official wiki and dedicated teams to help users use the tools. It is pretty much open source with Arma3 and good things have come out of it....being free mods and maps with better gameplay.

The more mod makers developing, the more people buying. Although, this is not about Arma3 this is about having ED ask certain members of the community to update units and work on new maps rather than release half baked mods with no official support from the developer.

Like the campaign Apache600 is releasing, wrong theatre, wrong ground units, wrong era. It could well be a decent effort if it was released on a Korean Theatre with ground units from the same era. It would be possible if ED actually had members updating the Encyclopedia with more units etc and old mate with the textures helping to work on new Theatres.

I'm sure if ED put the call out asking for people to contribute their time for free and in return get SoH etc etc for free for their troubles, many will put their hands up and offer the time. That is what a gaming, sim whatever you want to call it community does.
Posted By: Nate

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 04/09/16 11:04 AM

Originally Posted By: Winfield
I'm sure if ED put the call out asking for people to contribute their time for free and in return get SoH etc etc for free for their troubles, many will put their hands up and offer the time. That is what a gaming, sim whatever you want to call it community does.



If ED did that there would be uproar, here especially, about ED profiting from other peoples work.

Nate
Posted By: Tom_Weiss

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 04/09/16 11:45 AM

there is scarcely any incentive to continue releasing mods for free - in future I will be releasing all my skins for DCS as payware, using Eagle Dynamics own file hosting service, payware is the way to go.
Posted By: Winfield

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 04/09/16 11:46 AM

Originally Posted By: Nate
If ED did that there would be uproar, here especially, about ED profiting from other peoples work.

Nate


Not really, dcs world is "free" the modules aren't. ground units etc are "free" however to use them with any functionality one needs to purchase the CA module. The more ground units added....the more people purchasing CA

it's a win win.

Putting modders on the payrole means they are essentially employees for ED. Like in Tango's case as mentioned earlier. Then again, putting the call out for people to submit work for free in return of free modules may raise some eyebrows as you say, however if the modder is getting something back from ED in return such as free module map etc, I don't see the a problem.

Asking the consumer to pay for textures in the caucus map or buying campaigns that don't have ground units or decent theatre to support the modules raises more eyebrows.
Posted By: Johnny_Redd

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 04/09/16 03:18 PM

Does paying for a texture DLC mean we're headed in a new file structure direction? It's not hard to change ground textures and once they're in the public domain it's not that hard to distribute them to whoever wants them for free. I'm not advocating piracy but I can't see anyway of stopping it with the current file structure.
I'm all for folk selling their stuff and I've been following starways mods. I do hope ED gives that guy the SDK as he has shown an I interest in the Vietnam theatre which I have been wanting for a very long time. A change of textures for the old map seems kind of a waste of money right now with the advancement in terrain technology brought with EDGE. I don't see any incentive for folk to purchase a texture for the old map when sooner or later one will be able to download them for free.
Posted By: Johnny_Redd

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 04/09/16 03:35 PM

Also what happens to ones purchase of an aircraft skin when the 3D model is changed as happened with the sabre. Does the modder have an obligation to distribute updated textures to those that purchased in the past? Are the modders, who charge for their products, kept in the loop of what is happening behind the scenes of development? It all seems rather risky for the customer and leaves the modder at the mercy of the community.
Posted By: Johnny_Redd

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 04/09/16 05:15 PM

Originally Posted By: Troll
Very valid concerns, J_R.
When someone makes a module, they state that it will be compatible with DCSW 2.0, for instance. Does this mean that they have an obligation to keep the module compatible with 2.5, 2.91/2 or whatever? I'm not sure...
There may be some text in te EULA that covers this? Yeah, I know... Who reads them? ;-)

A company that makes a module will have a contract with ED and would, I imagine, have knowledge of EDs development plans. A modder charging for a skin would have no contractual agreement with ED or whoever's module they are skinning. They would not be privy to the development of the module or DCS world as a whole. It is a concern and it would require a lot of information, that is only available to those with an NDA, before I decided to buy a skin for what is essentially a work in progress. That goes for all user made pay for DLC
Posted By: Tom_Weiss

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 04/09/16 06:10 PM

you can buy a skin from me - I'll provide regular patches
Posted By: Zoomie13

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 04/10/16 06:09 AM

Originally Posted By: Tom_Weiss
you can buy a skin from me - I'll provide regular patches

You're selling patches of skin ?!!
Gross...!
biggrin
Posted By: mrskortch

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 04/10/16 11:25 AM

Originally Posted By: Winfield
ED must be the first developer to put forward community made mods and sell them off as DLC. I can't think of any other developer who has taken user made mods and sell them as DLC.


Donno who might have been the first to do it but contributing to games and getting compensated is becoming more common. Generally its been limited to cosmetics in games like TF2 or Planetside 2. But there are instances of more complex works being implemented, again TF2 is an example with maps. It is overall very much a gray area with no solid consensus on what the best approach is. I seem to recall Skyrim had a bit of a kerfuffle over introducing a payware mod system. I think a problem with that was it wasn't exactly curated and it was 100% community driven. It resulted in people stealing mods to try and get a profit and I think in a few cases there were free mods rendered useless because of another mod it depended on became payware.


Originally Posted By: Johnny_Redd
Also what happens to ones purchase of an aircraft skin when the 3D model is changed as happened with the sabre. Does the modder have an obligation to distribute updated textures to those that purchased in the past? Are the modders, who charge for their products, kept in the loop of what is happening behind the scenes of development? It all seems rather risky for the customer and leaves the modder at the mercy of the community.


Payware liveries doesn't seem to be a thing yet. It'd be a bit of a waste considering we can't change them in MP nor show it off since it would be clientside anyways. Suffice to say its not something I think should exist. Though private commissions for a livery would probably be ok, just not fully sanctioned DLC. If it did exist I wouldn't be shocked if payware liveries wouldn't be allowed for a model until development on it has "stabilized" to the point where changes wouldn't be likely.
Posted By: Tom_Weiss

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 04/10/16 11:56 AM

Originally Posted By: Zoomie13
Originally Posted By: Tom_Weiss
you can buy a skin from me - I'll provide regular patches

You're selling patches of skin ?!!
Gross...!
biggrin


yes - you will be able to count on me, after you buy a skin, to patch if needed.

I know that what I post sometimes sound like I am joking, because most of the time I am ...

but in this case I am not.


Posted By: Stratos

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 04/10/16 02:17 PM

No more freeware skins? frown
Posted By: Tom_Weiss

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 04/10/16 02:30 PM

wink

the way things are going, I doubt it - you will see, the moment that new map is announced most mod makers will have their "Aha !!!" moment , really, Eagle Dynamics is monetizing their products, we will pay now for every little thing : how long before a "Python 4" payware mod ? or a Desert Storm skin pack ??? or payware a high res skin pack for the Su-... ???

I'll continue releasing my skins for free and LOF will always be free , but if this trend goes the way I believe it will, how long I'll be able to continue ???

Posted By: CW3SF

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 04/10/16 03:04 PM

Tom, This is one of the reasons I love WOFF. Also has great support, a fantastic AI, and all backed up buy
several very nice and helpfull members.

Flying in WW1 is old style "one v one" ,get close and know your plane and the other guy.
Posted By: Tom_Weiss

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 04/10/16 03:11 PM

Originally Posted By: CW3SF


Flying in WW1 is old style "one v one" ,get close and know your plane and the other guy.


WWI & WWII dogfighting is a lot of fun smile



Originally Posted By: CW3SF
Tom, This is one of the reasons I love WOFF. Also has great support, a fantastic AI, and all backed up buy several very nice and helpfull members.


which is what makes flight sims such fun - and to me : our community is all about sharing work for free.
Posted By: Antoninus

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 04/10/16 07:50 PM

Originally Posted By: Johnny_Redd
Does paying for a texture DLC mean we're headed in a new file structure direction? It's not hard to change ground textures and once they're in the public domain it's not that hard to distribute them to whoever wants them for free. I'm not advocating piracy but I can't see anyway of stopping it with the current file structure.


It is the same situation in FSX. The file structure is completely open, with no build in copy protection. Users can access everything, yet 3rd parties can still sell their stuff successfully despite piracy.
Posted By: LOF_Rugg

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 04/11/16 03:00 AM

Originally Posted By: Sobek


But the question still stands. Do you love working your ass off and getting nothing in return?

Head over to the LOF website. You'll see how many of us have worked our ass off. Get nothing in return? Thanks from the community is all that mattered to me. I did it because I loved what I was doing. I've also fed people who were homeless and hungry. Nothing in that for me at all, right?
Posted By: Sobek

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 04/11/16 05:15 AM

Originally Posted By: LOF_Rugg
Head over to the LOF website. You'll see how many of us have worked our ass off. Get nothing in return? Thanks from the community is all that mattered to me. I did it because I loved what I was doing. I've also fed people who were homeless and hungry. Nothing in that for me at all, right?


Hooray for you. I too spent lots of my free time in service to the flight sim community. Still, how does that entitle me or you to tell somebody else he has to work for free?
Posted By: Tom_Weiss

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 04/11/16 11:37 AM

Originally Posted By: LOF_Rugg
Originally Posted By: Sobek


But the question still stands. Do you love working your ass off and getting nothing in return?

Head over to the LOF website. You'll see how many of us have worked our ass off. Get nothing in return? Thanks from the community is all that mattered to me. I did it because I loved what I was doing. I've also fed people who were homeless and hungry. Nothing in that for me at all, right?



and you have been doing it for over 10 or 12 years ...

what we did - and still do, and will continue to do for P3D will increasingly become more and more difficult to continue doing in DCS as more people gravitate towards payware, soon, people will begin asking why you are releasing freeware while others try to earn some money out of their mods.

I dont mind earning money out of my work - but it is bad when it becomes the new normal in our hobby.

Of course - if you price it reasonably people wont mind.

Which is not the case in DCS, DCS is already one of the most expensive flight sim products around.

That is the way things are, no use rebelling against it.
Posted By: LOF_Rugg

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 04/11/16 11:38 AM

Originally Posted By: Sobek
Hooray for you.

Wow, bitter much?

Quote:
I too spent lots of my free time in service to the flight sim community. Still, how does that entitle me or you to tell somebody else he has to work for free?

Where was I telling anyone he had to work for free? Are you having those conversations in your head again?

I was merely commenting that some people don't mind spending their free time doing things for the community. It's a shame that once in a while a bitter angry person responds to that with "Hooray for you". I hope that attitude doesn't stop someone who is doing something for free. That attitude is counter productive and of course it's expected from some of the community members who are "supporters" (notice I didn't say fanboi?).
Posted By: Remon

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 04/11/16 01:44 PM

Originally Posted By: Tom_Weiss

I dont mind earning money out of my work - but it is bad when it becomes the new normal in our hobby.

Of course - if you price it reasonably people wont mind.

Which is not the case in DCS, DCS is already one of the most expensive flight sim products around.

That is the way things are, no use rebelling against it.


Certainly, it is the 3rd most expensive sim behind FSX and X plane (4th if you count p3d), which sims you defend while they do exactly the same thing DCS does.
Posted By: Tom_Weiss

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 04/11/16 02:27 PM

Remon, feel free to disagree with my opinions.

thanks for your input.
Posted By: cichlidfan

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 04/11/16 02:58 PM

Originally Posted By: Remon
Originally Posted By: Tom_Weiss

I dont mind earning money out of my work - but it is bad when it becomes the new normal in our hobby.

Of course - if you price it reasonably people wont mind.

Which is not the case in DCS, DCS is already one of the most expensive flight sim products around.

That is the way things are, no use rebelling against it.


Certainly, it is the 3rd most expensive sim behind FSX and X plane (4th if you count p3d), which sims you defend while they do exactly the same thing DCS does.


Obviously, you have never looked at train sims.
Posted By: amnwrx

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 04/11/16 03:03 PM

Originally Posted By: Remon
Originally Posted By: Tom_Weiss

I dont mind earning money out of my work - but it is bad when it becomes the new normal in our hobby.

Of course - if you price it reasonably people wont mind.

Which is not the case in DCS, DCS is already one of the most expensive flight sim products around.

That is the way things are, no use rebelling against it.


Certainly, it is the 3rd most expensive sim behind FSX and X plane (4th if you count p3d), which sims you defend while they do exactly the same thing DCS does.

I agree...bonus if payed DLC attracts talented 3rd party devs like orbx to DCS.

My main concern is first that not owning a DLC will stop me from using already owned content, witch I'm pretty confident won't happen. The other concern is Ed locking out people that want to mod and continue to give out thier work for free.
Posted By: Johnny_Redd

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 04/11/16 03:59 PM

Look at the debacles of veao and avio. Those two third parties have struggled to keep up with the development of DCS and have continually failed to update their products citing ED as the problem. These two developers should be privy to the development of the core sim yet fail. Now we are to have community modders charging for DLC! With no knowledge of what changes are in the pipeline? Imagine a community modder like Tom whose has produced a lot for the community. 1 change in the core sim could mean he has to change everything he has produced. That is a lot of work to do for an unforgiving community.
Citing FSX and P3D as an example, FSX has a finished core, P3D has not. A lot of FSX developers do not produce as much for P3D or update their core as a priority purely because P3D is still a work in progress. The core is updating frequently and third parties simply do not prioritize P3D updates.
The problem with DCS is that it is a work in progress with a tagline "everything is subject to change". Who in their right mind is going to pay for community modded content when that content may very well be unusable after the next patch/update.
Posted By: Johnny_Redd

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 04/11/16 05:45 PM

Originally Posted By: Troll
Originally Posted By: Johnny_Redd

Citing FSX and P3D as an example, FSX has a finished core, P3D has not.


This is true, but one must also acknowledge that while FSX is finished, or reached it's end of development, it's buggy, and it won't evolve with new hardware. P3D is continually fixed and improved, and takes advantage of new hardware and new API's.
Yes, this must be troublesome for modders, I get that, but I'll take the continously improved sim over the finished and buggy one, any day.
Now, if modders start to charge for their work, they should set a end of development for their mod, like "compatible with v. 2.0-2.5. But this, of course, means that the core developer must have a roadmap for their software.

A core developer may well set out a roadmap and everything may look grand in the grand scheme of things. Post the roadmap on their fabulous forums but they then state "everything is subject to change". That puts a community modder in a sticky situation if they plan to charge for their mods. There is zero knowledge their mod will be compatible in the future. There is zero guarantee for the customer that their purchase will have a long lifespan. There will be no help from the core developers as they have no contract with the modder. For a finished product there would be no problem, for a work in progress I see nothing but a recipe for disaster for the modder. Modders breath life into communities, produce what the core developers don't. I see a lot of trouble for them with this new direction.
Also why keep the SDK from the community in general, citing not wanting unsatisfactory content to spoil the great work of third parties, then allow paid for DLC? It's a little bit weird don't you think?
Posted By: Force10

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 04/11/16 06:41 PM

Just out of curiosity...does anyone know what ED's percentage is on DLC from community modders?

I see the campaign comes with 3 activations...I imagine ED has to be getting something for adding the DRM to it. I'm not too stoked on having to worry about activations on a campaign now. I think the whole "activation" method is a little archaic at this point. This is something that I think Rise of Flight handled pretty well. As long as you log in with your credentials...it knows what you have purchased and what you haven't...pretty painless.
Posted By: Winfield

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 04/11/16 10:58 PM

Originally Posted By: Force10
Just out of curiosity...does anyone know what ED's percentage is on DLC from community modders?


I asked the same thing on the ED forums when the Ultimate Argument Campaign was released, the response was NDA prevented public discussion as expected, I probably would have had better luck sending a PM, but then even PM's are no doubt monitored over there.
Posted By: Sobek

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 04/12/16 05:23 AM

Originally Posted By: Winfield
but then even PM's are no doubt monitored over there.


They were not when i left and i doubt they have stocked up the ressources to the point where they could do it.
Posted By: Paradaz

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 04/12/16 05:47 PM

They seem to monitor most of the other websites around the globe to see if anyone posts anything negative about them....you'd think they would be able to monitor their own forum too.
Posted By: cichlidfan

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 04/12/16 07:05 PM

Automated scanning of PMs for key words would not be a significant draw on manpower. I am not saying they are doing so but the first time someone emailed me instead of a PM, was because they suspected that ED was doing this, and that was many years ago.

It also could be done without the moderators knowledge as well.
Posted By: SlipBall

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 04/12/16 08:38 PM

This applies to all forums every where, not just flight sims...I'm sure someone just sends a link of the offending post to someone over there who has a ban hammer...no extra man power needed to cover the globe
Posted By: Sobek

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 04/12/16 08:47 PM

Originally Posted By: cichlidfan
It also could be done without the moderators knowledge as well.


And what would be the benefit of that?

PMs can be reported, but there's no other way for mods to access PMs on EDs boards.
Posted By: Tom_Weiss

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 04/12/16 09:13 PM

Originally Posted By: cichlidfan
Quote:
It also could be done without the moderators knowledge as well.


And what would be the benefit of that?



that ...

... I am playing as Michelle Rodriguez in the Division

what would be benefit of that ?

none, other than I like Michelle Rodriguez.



(that is the closest I could get wink )

but on my day job at LOF I am still Clint Eastwood.

carry on with the chaos guys, I am doing my part.
Posted By: PFunk

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 04/13/16 01:00 AM

We used to complain about the lack of single-player value in DCS.
Posted By: Remon

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 04/13/16 01:06 AM

Originally Posted By: Tom_Weiss


that ...

... I am playing as Michelle Rodriguez in the Division

what would be benefit of that ?

none, other than I like Michelle Rodriguez.


You must die a lot in game.
Posted By: Tom_Weiss

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 04/13/16 01:23 AM

I hope not ! right now I am kind of lost ... after surviving my first firefight I have to go somewhere else to retrieve something, but it is too late now and I am too tired. I will leave this quest for tomorrow. It should take me at this rate the rest of the year to finish this game.

when I start a game I am always tempted to replay the last one instead, which was Alien Isolation, was incredible fun to play.

Originally Posted By: PFunk
We used to complain about the lack of single-player value in DCS.


true since LO FC - so much so, that in those FC days I made dozens of SP missions, those were the days... I miss them.

Posted By: Remon

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 04/13/16 02:22 AM

There's a Michelle Rodriguez meme, since she dies in her movies a lot (at least she used to).
Posted By: leaf_on_the_wind

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 04/16/16 06:15 PM

Originally Posted By: Remon
There's a Michelle Rodriguez meme, since she dies in her movies a lot (at least she used to).


Kinda like a female Sean Bean ?
Posted By: Remon

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 04/16/16 11:00 PM

Originally Posted By: leaf_on_the_wind

Kinda like a female Sean Bean ?


Yeah, something like that, considering how few movies she has made. Now that I think about it, she's quite proper for an MMO character, since she returned from the dead in at least 3 franchises, as far as I know.

She respawned in...

Click to reveal..
Machete, Resident Evil and Fast and Furious.
Posted By: Jedi Master

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 04/18/16 05:58 PM

Don't forget she was in multiple episodes of Lost!

Before they killed her off, LOL...



The Jedi Master
Posted By: Tom_Weiss

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 04/18/16 07:51 PM

she played Ana Lucia Cortez ... wow !
Posted By: Jedi Master

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 04/18/16 08:29 PM

LOL, THAT you know! biggrin



The Jedi Master
Posted By: Johnny_Redd

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 04/22/16 09:55 PM

It looks to me like the new P-51 campaign is straight out of GTA. Strange, bizarre idea if you ask me.

"Are you ready to join Vasily on this epic journey?"
Nope
Posted By: Paradaz

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 04/23/16 05:35 AM

Another campaign. Enough said.

My concerns in the very first post have clearly come to fruition. I'm quite sure the long list of silly and simple bugs that we have with each and every module/patch/release are way down the pecking order because ED have a new focus of supporting as many campaigns as possible.

Good to know they have all the resources in place to support the myriad of campaigns that will require rework, integration and further testing in the unfinished 'world' that is constantly changing......albeit now at a much slower rate than ever before (if that is even possible).

<sarcasm>Given that ED testing can't even identify the most basic of errors such as whether a module even works in the first place or if the audio is even functional before release I wish them luck spreading their resources across multiple campaigns identifying all the errors that each new update brings, not forgetting the 1.5/2.x merge sometime in the year 2058</sarcasm>
Posted By: Winfield

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 04/23/16 06:08 AM

Originally Posted By: Paradaz
Another campaign. Enough said.

My concerns in the very first post have clearly come to fruition. I'm quite sure the long list of silly and simple bugs that we have with each and every module/patch/release are way down the pecking order because ED have a new focus of supporting as many campaigns as possible.

Good to know they have all the resources in place to support the myriad of campaigns that will require rework, integration and further testing in the unfinished 'world' that is constantly changing......albeit now at a much slower rate than ever before (if that is even possible).

<sarcasm>Given that ED testing can't even identify the most basic of errors such as whether a module even works in the first place or if the audio is even functional before release I wish them luck spreading their resources across multiple campaigns identifying all the errors that each new update brings, not forgetting the 1.5/2.x merge sometime in the year 2058</sarcasm>


QFT
Posted By: toonces

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 04/23/16 02:23 PM

This is just sad.
Posted By: Aeronautico

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 04/23/16 03:23 PM

Sorry I have not read the thread but... what do have campaign designers to do with coders and 3D, texture artists? I would think campaign design detracts not a single bit to any other effort, when the missions/campaign are dealt with: it keeps busy those who do that for a job and give customers more options, which is the merrier (no comment though on this last P-51 GTA campaign but somebody might like it and nobody's forced to buy it). Probably I am just being naive: please tell me why.
Posted By: Sobek

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 04/23/16 03:27 PM

Originally Posted By: Aeronautico
Sorry I have not read the thread but... what do have campaign designers to do with coders and 3D, texture artists? I would think campaign design detracts not a single bit to any other effort, when the missions/campaign are dealt with: it keeps busy those who do that for job and give customers more options, which is the merrier (no comment though on this last P-51 GTA campaign but we're not forced to buy it are we)? Probably I am just being naive: please tell me why.


But feelings! wink
Posted By: Paradaz

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 04/23/16 04:30 PM

Originally Posted By: Aeronautico
I would think campaign design detracts not a single bit to any other effort

Probably I am just being naive: please tell me why.



Have a look through the thread, ED are creating patches to support some of these campaigns (one of the campaigns had a dedicated patch just for that campaign) and we'd like to think they are actually doing some testing on the campaigns too and may well have to make some tweaks etc before they are released. There will undoubtedly be additional effort into getting it out of the door with a valid installer etc.

Now what happens when a DCS World patch breaks a campaign.....is the original campaign author going to make the necessary tweaks and fixes? Probably not, it will most likely be ED that does that and now multiply it by how many campaigns are out there. What happens when the dev branches get merged......all the campaigns have to be tested again, potentially more integration and validation work required.

And so forth.....it's certainly not the case that there isn't any effort on ED's part. But, not to worry...it's providing additional funds for all the extra work they give themselves by being totally incompetent in many other areas.
Posted By: Flogger23m

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 04/23/16 06:22 PM

It does seem like the campaigns aren't really striving for high quality. I have no problem with fictional themes, but that certainly doesn't come off as authentic. I have a feeling the briefings and overall quality might not be there either. And there are still only a few WWII planes out there. What exactly will you do in the campaign?

My main concern though is a lot of basic features that would/might have received an update are now going to become paid DLC. Back with Black Shark and A-10C we received some updates with the aircraft. With DCS World you simply get plane modules, which is fine. Rather than tying engine/game improvements into an aircraft purchase, they can now be deployed separately. But now it seems like a lot of these upgrades are becoming paid DLC. The value per purchase is getting worse and the updates increasingly placed behind a pay wall.
Posted By: Sobek

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 04/23/16 06:35 PM

Originally Posted By: Flogger23m
But now it seems like a lot of these upgrades are becoming paid DLC.


Like what? Is there an example that leads you to believe that? Did you have to pay anything for, say, the move from dx9 to dx11? What about the sound engine updates? Not sure i see any evidence supporting your opinion.
Posted By: Paradaz

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 04/23/16 07:04 PM

Is there any news on the carrier that was mentioned last year? That sounded very much like payware DLC possibly supporting the F18 - given the way everything is seemingly heading in that direction I'd be very surprised to see ED putting additional effort into something that doesn't really need it only to release for free on the assumption that the F18 will actually come with a naval platform to launch/land on anyway.
Posted By: Force10

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 04/23/16 08:09 PM

Originally Posted By: Sobek

Like what? Is there an example that leads you to believe that? Did you have to pay anything for, say, the move from dx9 to dx11? What about the sound engine updates? Not sure i see any evidence supporting your opinion.


Black Shark 1 to 2 comes to mind. I bought BS1 a little late and then BS2 came out with virtually no warning that they were working on it. It was pretty smart though...if folks like me knew BS2 was coming out, I might of held off buying BS1. Of course BS2 made the module have the ability to plug into the DCS world and did have some bug fixes to BS1.

Since this is a thread about campaigns...I imagine releasing Nevada with no campaigns except available in DLC form could be an example?
Posted By: Sobek

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 04/23/16 09:11 PM

Originally Posted By: Paradaz
Is there any news on the carrier that was mentioned last year? That sounded very much like payware DLC possibly supporting the F18 - given the way everything is seemingly heading in that direction I'd be very surprised to see ED putting additional effort into something that doesn't really need it only to release for free on the assumption that the F18 will actually come with a naval platform to launch/land on anyway.


There was only ever talk of doing a DLC higher poly model and including the ability to walk around the carrier. Never heard about "the carrier" being exclusively DLC.
Posted By: Nate

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 04/23/16 09:13 PM

Originally Posted By: Force10
Since this is a thread about campaigns...I imagine releasing Nevada with no campaigns except available in DLC form could be an example?


It should be noted though that all modules tend not have their campaigns added until the product leaves Beta.

Nate
Posted By: Sobek

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 04/23/16 09:17 PM

Originally Posted By: Force10
Black Shark 1 to 2 comes to mind. I bought BS1 a little late and then BS2 came out with virtually no warning that they were working on it. It was pretty smart though...if folks like me knew BS2 was coming out, I might of held off buying BS1. Of course BS2 made the module have the ability to plug into the DCS world and did have some bug fixes to BS1.


Funny, that somewhates foils Floggers argument. Though his point was with regard to DCS World, and by implication so was mine.
Posted By: mrskortch

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 04/24/16 09:06 AM

Originally Posted By: Force10
Since this is a thread about campaigns...I imagine releasing Nevada with no campaigns except available in DLC form could be an example?


Since there are so many aircraft available to fly I wonder what the reaction would be if some aircraft you don't own got a campaign with the purchase of a terrain. Someone has got to lose out either by not owning an aircraft or disinterest in it.
Posted By: Flogger23m

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 04/24/16 06:43 PM

Originally Posted By: Sobek
Originally Posted By: Flogger23m
But now it seems like a lot of these upgrades are becoming paid DLC.


Like what? Is there an example that leads you to believe that? Did you have to pay anything for, say, the move from dx9 to dx11? What about the sound engine updates? Not sure i see any evidence supporting your opinion.


Textures and aircraft carriers come to mind. I wouldn't be surprised if more upgrades become payware.
Posted By: Sobek

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 04/25/16 05:13 AM

Originally Posted By: Flogger23m
Textures and aircraft carriers come to mind. I wouldn't be surprised if more upgrades become payware.


That's some bonus features for the carrier, not the carrier itself. And textures, well, that's just textures. Buying or not buying into that makes no difference to what missions you are able to join.
Posted By: Flogger23m

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 04/25/16 06:41 PM

Originally Posted By: Sobek
Originally Posted By: Flogger23m
Textures and aircraft carriers come to mind. I wouldn't be surprised if more upgrades become payware.


That's some bonus features for the carrier, not the carrier itself. And textures, well, that's just textures. Buying or not buying into that makes no difference to what missions you are able to join.


ED has yet to confirm if everyone will get enhanced aircraft carrier assets or if we will be stuck with the same ones from 2003 (or earlier) that we've paid for multiple times now. And upgrades are just upgrades and you don't need them? Fair enough, but you're proving my point. By your logic the new weather effects/engine in development can be payware to as long as the original version is free. Where does it end? AI units? New countries? Mission editor changes? Advanced AI behavior changes?

Being able to join a server has little to nothing to do with the topic at hand. I don't own an M2000C, and if I join a server with only M2000Cs I won't be able to play regardless. Same with terrian. You're essentially saying upgrades should be withheld and sold as payware, but aircraft and terrian modules are bad because not everyone can join the same server. That doesn't make any sense to me.

The original concept of DCS World was a nice one. One base game that gets upgraded while you buy new aircraft, terrian and campaigns. Fair enough. Aircraft (and even terrian) are full price titles in themselves. We'd get gradual updates while paying a bit more for modules. But now we're being charged for various upgrades on top of that and will have to juggle draconian DRM for an abundance of things including texture files. If they're going that route then lower the price of the modules.

The original concept sounded great, but I'm not so sure I like where it is headed.
Posted By: Snoopy_476th

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 04/26/16 09:35 AM

Originally Posted By: Sobek
And textures, well, that's just textures.


If we're talking about the updated textures to Georgia than it could cause a problem in MP (same with the free texture mods that people have created) because I could be seeing a brown field but while trying to talk on another ACFT they are seeing a yellow field making the talk on using geo references difficult if not impossible. In the 476th we highly frown upon (but don't restrict) the use of different ground texture mods.

As to the carrier, if it does end up being payware to even get the new model that could cause issues as well in MP. Someone creates a mission using the new model, aircraft spawn locations most likely won't be the same as the free carrier so someone who doesn't have the payware wouldn't be able to use the same carrier.

We'll see, I too am not a fan of the "pay for everything" philosophy that seems to be happening but for me it will just mean I don't purchase as many products as I have in the past and hopefully it won't degrade the MP experience much because with out MP I wouldn't be flying DCS at all, I just don't enjoy SP.

Originally Posted By: Flogger23m
The original concept sounded great, but I'm not so sure I like where it is headed.


Completely agree.
Posted By: Jedi Master

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 04/26/16 12:59 PM

It does seem like that while in the past you'd get "a sim" for your money that included a plane (or more), a theater (or more), AI non-flyables, ground units (targets), and so on that would be new/remade/refreshed with every release, we're now in the worst possible outcome of a modular design.

For literally decades, since Falcon 3.0, the dream of a modular flight sim has been attempted and collapsed many times. ED finally did it...and it's not turned out the way we hoped at all. Development times measured with multiple calendars for just a plane, while other areas languish for years and years. frown There's no incentive to make a new terrain because the new plane plugs into it. Would people have bought successive Il-2 sims if each one used the same maps as the 2001 release?

Personally, I never cared for half the stuff they bothered to model. Radios? TACAN/DME/VOR? Fine tuning fusing options?
While I appreciate the effort that went into the Ka-50, A-10C, Mig-21bis, and others, I find in all cases they spent considerable time on features I will never even touch. The Su-25T is pretty much as far as I need them to go, with the addition of a clickable cockpit. So it's great work, I just think only a fraction of their customers are actually utilizing it.

At this point, I wish all these modules would just be made to FC3 levels with a clickable cockpit and then have them move on to the next FC3-level plane or helo. If everything was limited to that, how many more would we have right now that would likely be in a better state since it's not as hard to make the planes work properly when you're only modeling the absolutely necessary systems?

Since DCS' first release 8 years ago progress has been what I would describe as glacial all to satisfy the system modeling needs to the minority of their customers. Most of us want a great plane that flies and fights accurately against other great planes but have little to no interest in taking week-long courses to learn how to reroute fuel flow when a flak hit takes out the starboard pump, activate emergency oxygen with the cabin decompression, and so on.


Forget a $60 Mirage 2000 that lets me do things only a real 2k pilot would know had to be done, I'd be perfectly happy with an endless parade of $30 FC3-level planes like the Mirage, Falcon, Tomcat, Viggen, Apache, and so on that can get done in a year. Then, if demand is there, retrofit the DCS level systems into them later as paid DLC. Meanwhile, we could have been flying them without that.




The Jedi Master
Posted By: ST0RM

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 04/26/16 01:17 PM

JM nailed it!!
Posted By: Johnny_Redd

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 04/26/16 02:36 PM

I can't really add much to what JM has said. The revenue from FC level aircraft (with clickable pits) would dwarf the current income of the "high fidelity" betas that are in development for years. There would be more choice, more players and It would also negate the need to charge the customer for every little upgrade.
Life simply doesn't allow me the time needed to learn these aircraft systems.
Posted By: cdelucia

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 04/26/16 02:55 PM

While I agree they'd make more money that way, there are still a few of us who want the hi-fi simulator (i.e.: study sim). Preferably the plane would be truly dual-role, having A-G radar. Along with a dynamic campaign.

So basically Falcon 4.0 in DCS clothing. And while I'm dreaming I'd like a pony...
Posted By: scrim

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 04/26/16 03:42 PM

Yeah, I prefer study level sims by far. Streamlining their development + introducing a DC + stop being greedy control freaks about 3rd party devs (would've been nice to have a Super Hornet, but nooooooope) would probably fix a lot. Cut the WW2 and early Cold war crap, you've yet to finish the modern environment. And tell the 3rd party devs to follow suit, nothing from that side of roughly 1970. That would certainly increase the number of modern modules.
Posted By: Battlerabbit

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 04/26/16 03:48 PM

Originally Posted By: scrim
Yeah, I prefer study level sims by far. Streamlining their development + introducing a DC + stop being greedy control freaks about 3rd party devs (would've been nice to have a Super Hornet, but nooooooope) would probably fix a lot. Cut the WW2 and early Cold war crap, you've yet to finish the modern environment. And tell the 3rd party devs to follow suit, nothing from that side of roughly 1970. That would certainly increase the number of modern modules.

I would say around 1960 because there are some awesome planes that flew during Vietnam before 1970.

But otherwise Uhhh exactly this especially the WW2 modules it's not like there aren't enough WW2 sims out there.
Or at least a better mission editor, the current one is so limited you can see it in the missions and servers that are played most (104 Airquake & VA Virtual Aerobatic).
Posted By: theOden

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 04/26/16 04:22 PM

I'm with Jedi on this.
Study level planes all fine and dandy - I did enjoy learning the A-10C but in all honesty, I never fly it nowadays.

I think more money and more pilots would show up if they crafted some FC3 plane packs.

Imagine early/mid/late cold war era packs such as:

Sukhoi Strikers: Su7/Su17/Su25
Sukhoi Fighters: Su9/Su15/Su27
SAAB Pack: Draken/Viggen/Gripen
Euro Pack: F104/F5/F16A
USAF Pack: F4E/F16/F22
Navy Pack: F4S/F14/FA18
Navy Strike: A4E/A7E/A6E

or role packs:
MiG Pack: MiG21/MiG23/MiG25
Russian AF: MiG29/Su27/MiG31


or since many of them lived through some major upgrades even family sets would be possible:

Fishbed pack
MiG21PF, MiG21MF, MiG21bis

Phantom packs
USAF F4C, F4E, F4G
Navy F4B, F4N, F4S
RAF F4K, F4M, F4J
Euro F4F(LW), F4E(HAF), F4E(TAF)

Draken pack
J35B, J35F, F35J

With such packs the multiplayer hooligans could join any "era server" flying their Fishbed of simulated era - no problem joining.

Today you need to survive in your 21bis in a Eagle spamraam environment (ok, server host could limit to Sparrows - but does it happen besides 51st?)

$30 each pack if fc3+ modelled, fair price?
$50 for opponent bundle, say one F4-pack with a 21-pack.

All with minimum 1 campaign included.
Posted By: Johnny_Redd

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 04/26/16 04:33 PM

There we have it, everybody wants something different. With the pace of the current development and style of no real focus on any one era, nobody is going to be satisfied. Give me a FC Vietnam package and I wouldn't be wasting my time on these forums.
Posted By: scrim

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 04/26/16 05:42 PM

Actually, I think it can be said that almost everyone wishes they would stop their doomed attempt at competing with IL-2. Regardless of anyone's feeling about study level vs. FC, doing that would definitely speed the process up.
Posted By: Para_Bellum

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 04/26/16 06:48 PM

I enjoy the WW2 aircraft very much. Had a blast flying P-51s during the recent Case Blue PvP campaign.

Give me the Normandy map, WW2 objects and an AI bomber or two for Germany/Allies and I'll be a very happy simmer. And I'm not really interested in FC3-level aircraft, no thanks.

Originally Posted By: Battlerabbit

Or at least a better mission editor, the current one is so limited you can see it in the missions and servers that are played most (104 Airquake & VA Virtual Aerobatic).


The only thing I'm missing is a WYSIWYG 3d editor for placing objects on the map, that would be great. Other than that what is missing? I always thought the DCS editor was pretty good.
Posted By: Flogger23m

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 04/26/16 07:17 PM

Originally Posted By: Jedi Master
...I'd be perfectly happy with an endless parade of $30 FC3-level planes like the Mirage, Falcon, Tomcat, Viggen, Apache, and so on that can get done in a year. Then, if demand is there, retrofit the DCS level systems into them later as paid DLC. Meanwhile, we could have been flying them without that.




The Jedi Master


I've said the same countless times, and I'd be very happy. I don't mind the study sim offerings but I hope another 3rd party team will jump aboard and make FC3 level aircraft. PFM, nice cockpit, partially clickable (or not, doesn't matter much to me). Sell them for a lower price, value varying depending on the model. The variety of modern planes would open up considerably as well. Take the Mirage 2000 for example. We would likely be able to see a -5F, or even -9. That is simply not possible with the level of detail RAZBAM is striving for. The result is an early C model, which is fairly limited. There is nothing wrong with that, but I would like to see more modern variants. Those that prefer study sim levels can buy a C, those that are okay with simplified avionics can get a -5F.

And maybe ED can release an FC3 level F/A-18C at a reduced price. Not worth it for the trainers as they're kind of simple as is, but it would be excellent for the Hornet.

As mentioned this sounds like an excellent opportunity for a 3rd party dev. There are a number of study sim developers already, ranging from semi modern F-14s to WWII. I think it would be viable if a 3rd party team released an FC3 level Su-35, F-16C, Super Hornet, Rafale or something. I think there is enough of a player base to support such a studio.
Posted By: toonces

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 04/26/16 08:01 PM

Man alive, what a great two pages.

Everything Jedi said, +1
Everything Oden said, +1
Everything Johnny Red said, +1

I saw that mafia campaign thing for the P-51 and it just makes me laugh and cry. All that effort to make some uber-awesome simulation of that iconic aircraft, and that's the best we can do with it?

ED could fill a monster hole that exists, straddling the border area between Strike Fighters 2 and DCS A-10 (for example). Other than Falcon 4, which is some weird hybrid of the two, there is no game that provides the graphics and multiplayer gameplay that DCS could provide if they'd stop this nonsense.

FC3 with clickable cockpits. Do that, start cranking out some era-appropriate jets faster, and we can be done here.
Posted By: Flogger23m

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 04/26/16 08:43 PM

On top of that there are some outstanding issues with the game. I am still being blown out of the sky by BMPs easily. While flying an Su-33. I noticed they can instantly track and detect me once I get within a certain radius. Even if I come from behind their turrets will turn around and be tracking me perfectly every single time. In the real world a ground vehicle like that does not have that ability. It is as if it has a radar with 360 degrees of instant detection/refreshing. Even if the commander spotted the aircraft as he happened he scanning the horizon it will take some time to track the aircraft. I am not too sure how accurate the laser range finder / other equipment is for tracking a high speed fighter either.

The BMPs and other APCs are still better anti aircraft guns than the dedicated AA units. And it has been like this for well over a year now. I almost never play ground attack aircraft now because of it. Unless we can get a Eurofighter, F-16 or any high speed fighter that can carry 6+ anti tank missiles I won't be doing A2G until this is fixed. And that largely includes buying low speed attack aircraft which rely on rockets/guns/bombs. Considering a large portion of the planes are ground attack or light trainers I think this is a pretty big issue.
Posted By: Jerkzilla

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 04/26/16 10:39 PM

Originally Posted By: toonces
Man alive, what a great two pages.

Everything Jedi said, +1
Everything Oden said, +1
Everything Johnny Red said, +1

I saw that mafia campaign thing for the P-51 and it just makes me laugh and cry. All that effort to make some uber-awesome simulation of that iconic aircraft, and that's the best we can do with it?

ED could fill a monster hole that exists, straddling the border area between Strike Fighters 2 and DCS A-10 (for example). Other than Falcon 4, which is some weird hybrid of the two, there is no game that provides the graphics and multiplayer gameplay that DCS could provide if they'd stop this nonsense.

FC3 with clickable cockpits. Do that, start cranking out some era-appropriate jets faster, and we can be done here.


The core assumption you guys are making is that cutting down on non critical systems, presumably like oxygen and whatnot, will cut down development time enough to properly flesh out DCS.

Now I don't think any of us have any proof one way or the other, but given the fact that FC 3 still doesn't have AFMs for 2 of its 6 aircraft after 3 years says, to me at least, that your assumption may not be correct. Aviodev and VEAO's flight model troubles contend it further.

Personally, my biggest gripe with DCS is the Caucasus map. Trees with no collision and poor terrain poly count genuinely reduce the value of helicopter modules and CA. ED said they'd update it, but no details as to what that update will actually do. Never mind when it will be here.
Posted By: Flogger23m

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 04/26/16 11:34 PM

I think the update is the texture pack, which is listed for $14.99. I suppose it can certainly enhance the terrian but it will always look a bit dated. It is very old.Most of the map is from 2003's LOMAC, although with updated textures from Flaming Cliffs.
Posted By: Jerkzilla

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 04/27/16 08:53 AM

Originally Posted By: Flogger23m
I think the update is the texture pack, which is listed for $14.99.


My feelings on that point can almost be described as rage.
Posted By: Sobek

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 04/27/16 08:59 AM

Originally Posted By: Flogger23m
It is very old.Most of the map is from 2003's LOMAC, although with updated textures from Flaming Cliffs.


Actually that is not correct. The terrain mesh resolution was updated significantly for BS 1 (and naturally all subsequent releases incorporated that). That isn't to say that it's not showing its age.
Posted By: scrim

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 04/27/16 02:13 PM

Originally Posted By: Flogger23m
On top of that there are some outstanding issues with the game. I am still being blown out of the sky by BMPs easily. While flying an Su-33. I noticed they can instantly track and detect me once I get within a certain radius. Even if I come from behind their turrets will turn around and be tracking me perfectly every single time. In the real world a ground vehicle like that does not have that ability. It is as if it has a radar with 360 degrees of instant detection/refreshing. Even if the commander spotted the aircraft as he happened he scanning the horizon it will take some time to track the aircraft. I am not too sure how accurate the laser range finder / other equipment is for tracking a high speed fighter either.

The BMPs and other APCs are still better anti aircraft guns than the dedicated AA units. And it has been like this for well over a year now. I almost never play ground attack aircraft now because of it. Unless we can get a Eurofighter, F-16 or any high speed fighter that can carry 6+ anti tank missiles I won't be doing A2G until this is fixed. And that largely includes buying low speed attack aircraft which rely on rockets/guns/bombs. Considering a large portion of the planes are ground attack or light trainers I think this is a pretty big issue.


Yeah. IRL A-10s try to stay around 20k altitude because it's safer than risking MANPADs and SPAAGs when they have a perfectly viable standoff capability since '05 anyway. In DCS they stay up there because of BMPs. Nice one ED, Rassija stronk!
Posted By: Art_J

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 04/28/16 02:00 PM

The "FC3 vs full level" discussion never grows old, does it? Or the "old planes vs new ones" for that matter. Even though some arguments don't make much sense whatsoever. Well, DCS WWII will NOT and can NOT be competition to CloD & BoS BECAUSE of full systems modelling. These are two completely different categories. There are no "other" WWII sims on the market with planes of DCS complexity levels. Not counting FSX/P3D with flying only for the sake of flying (FSX tacpack is a gallant attempt, but it will always lag behind dedicated combat platforms). So people who want this one step of fidelity higher add DCS to their sim collection and are here to stay, as there are just NO alternatives. Exactly the same applies to old jets built by BST and LNS.

That's how I got here with my consumer's money, buying every aircraft pre-dating mid-'70s. Wouldn't touch the DCSW with a stick if there were no old planes, or if planes were FC3-level only, 'cause I already have modded Il-2 series for these, and I know I'm not the only one. Spreading consumer base can only be a good thing, as long as there are 3rd parties with sufficient manpower & skills hired for the additional job. Now, whether VEAO and AvioDev are actually up for the task and whether ED coordinates the whole endeavour correctly is... another matter, to put it mildly.

Telling 3rd parties to stop making old birds will not miraculously redirect them to these modern ones some of You are so anal about, as 3rd parties only make planes they're interested in, no matter how obscure they are (e.g. C-101, Viggen). Now, that might somehow work with ED itself, but even ED has contracted finishing Normandy map to external company, so it's not like WWII project takes THAT much of their own resources.

Posted By: Jedi Master

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 04/28/16 05:50 PM

That's the problem isn't it?

There are no alternative to anything. Want a modern jet sim? Historical jet sim? WWII sim? Ground units? Apparently the answer to every single question is DCS World. Yet we have 3rd parties who all treat DCS World as their side job (whether that's because they all DO have another job or because they make FSX/P3D planes as their main one), and a main developer who has a development schedule that frankly looks more complicated than Boeing's.

I don't know how many people work at ED, but if it's less than 250 I can understand why it's taken us this many years to get this far when they're working on:
EDGE
Integrating 3rd party campaigns
Integrating 3rd party maps
Integrating 3rd party planes
Hornet
Hormuz
A list of unreleased WWII planes so long I don't even remember what's on it
A long list of already released planes (WWII and otherwise) that still need fixes and/or updates to bring them up to the standard of the latest releases
A long list of non-airplane specific fixes (like AAMs) that still need to be completed

There definitely is a lot of balls in the air and people seem unwilling to give ED the latitude to wait on one thing while they do another.
"Where's Hormuz?"
"Where's the Hornet?"
"Where's Normandy?"
"Where's the Spitfire?"
"Where's the fix for XYZ?"


A narrowing of focus would've been a great help...several years ago. There's no putting the cork back in this bottle now.

Despite the fact that there ARE other WWII sims out there (complaints about insufficient complexity notwithstanding), there are NO other fast jet sims out there, period. BMS doesn't count--it's not from the 21st century. There are no other helo sims, period. FSX/P3D doesn't count, you can't engage in combat.
So, SURPRISE SURPRISE! the fast jet and helo people are impatient with the WWII stuff diluting efforts even by a fraction. It STAGGERS the imagination, doesn't it?

What good is broadening the customer base by simply increasing the number of dissatisfied customers? Instead of Y customers having their products mostly complete, we have 2Y customers with their products mostly needing updates or not even existing yet.



The Jedi Master
Posted By: Flogger23m

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 04/28/16 05:59 PM

I'm not too up to date on IL-2. In what ways are DCS WWII planes more realistic than CLoD?
Posted By: Jedi Master

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 04/28/16 06:44 PM

There are things you'd never even think of trying to do in CloD that you can do in DCS. Things I've flown sims for two decades without doing and don't intend to start doing now and therefore don't care about.
After all, CloD included numerous flyable planes, a terrain, AI planes, ships, ground targets, and a ton of other stuff for the price of one DCS WWII bird that includes none of that. Naturally it's modeled to a higher standard. The question isn't "is it or isn't it", the question is "with this pace of releasing them and no suitable environment for them (targets, terrain, comms, etc) is it necessary?"

With music, an artist can release a song or two off an upcoming album before the rest of the songs are finished, and that works fine. With a sim, you can't really enjoy part of it if the rest is still years away.



The Jedi Master
Posted By: - Ice

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 04/28/16 07:20 PM

Originally Posted By: Jedi Master
There are no alternative to anything. Want a modern jet sim?
....
there are NO other fast jet sims out there, period. BMS doesn't count--it's not from the 21st century.
What makes BMS "not count" exactly? Just because it's "not from the 21st century"?


Originally Posted By: Jedi Master
A narrowing of focus would've been a great help...several years ago. There's no putting the cork back in this bottle now.
What's stopping them from saying "hang on, we realize we've bitten off more than we can chew. We're stopping development on X to concentrate on finishing Y." Heck, if I were them, I'd stop EVERYTHING and concentrate on getting the CORE game finished that way it's not changing all the time and 3rd party guys have to adjust for each change.


Originally Posted By: Jedi Master
There are no other helo sims, period. FSX/P3D doesn't count, you can't engage in combat.
How about EECH? What makes that "not count"?
Posted By: ST0RM

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 04/28/16 07:48 PM

Originally Posted By: - Ice
What's stopping them from saying "hang on, we realize we've bitten off more than we can chew. We're stopping development on X to concentrate on finishing Y." Heck, if I were them, I'd stop EVERYTHING and concentrate on getting the CORE game finished that way it's not changing all the time and 3rd party guys have to adjust for each change.


I think that bit of honesty would go a lot farther than the current schedule.
Posted By: SlipBall

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 04/28/16 07:49 PM

Originally Posted By: Flogger23m
I'm not too up to date on IL-2. In what ways are DCS WWII planes more realistic than CLoD?



In my experience flying both 109's I think that Oleg really nailed the 109 in Clod...the E-3, I really enjoy it with the damage model and the guns with their tweaking ballistics ...awesome! ar15
Posted By: Flogger23m

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 04/29/16 04:47 AM

Originally Posted By: Art_J
Telling 3rd parties to stop making old birds will not miraculously redirect them to these modern ones some of You are so anal about, as 3rd parties only make planes they're interested in, no matter how obscure they are (e.g. C-101, Viggen). Now, that might somehow work with ED itself, but even ED has contracted finishing Normandy map to external company, so it's not like WWII project takes THAT much of their own resources.



I don't recall anyone saying that 3rd party devs should stop making WWII planes, but merely saying there is a vacant area for FC3 level modern aircraft. A number of devs are already doing WWII outside of ED themselves. Some of which are variants of the same plane. And lets be honest, a WWII plane variant to variant is more similar than an F-16A to F-16E. The differences in modern aircraft variants are huge. Point being, there is already some overlap. If the market still has demand for even more standalone WWII planes then good for those developers/customers.

But there is a big gap being neglected: The not hyper realistic modern flight sim. And as mentioned previously there are limitations to what you can model in a proper study sim. With something a little more simplified there is some wiggle room. It opens up a whole new market of aircraft. And I think there is enough demand to support this niche within DCS. If you don't like it that is fine, there will always be WWII aircraft modules. Just like I won't be buying them at $40-60, you won't be buying FC3 level modern fighters. But there is no reason 3rd party devs (or even ED) can't develop them alongside each other. We already have FC3 and a number of WWII planes coexisting in the same sim regardless.

My hope is that a 3rd party studio jumps into this niche within a niche and brings some more modern aircraft to the game. We have a lot of trainers and WWII planes in development, but not many modern fighters. Even the F-14A/Mirage 2000C are well over a quarter of a century old in terms of technology. The F-14A entered service almost 50 years ago.
Posted By: Sobek

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 04/29/16 07:48 AM

Originally Posted By: Jedi Master
I don't know how many people work at ED, but if it's less than 250 I can understand why it's taken us this many years to get this far when they're working on:


250 people? More like 50. Check the credits in the manuals (and don't include the testers).

Originally Posted By: Jedi Master

A narrowing of focus would've been a great help...several years ago. There's no putting the cork back in this bottle now.


Quite the contrary, ED have worked continuously and consciously on broadening their user base. If one wants to believe Wags (yeah i know, it's a lot to ask around here ;)) they used to barely break even on the DCS modules and the FC series was what brought in some money. Finally they have at least one leg to stand on and you want them to go back? I can promise you that is not gonna do what you want.
Posted By: Paradaz

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 04/29/16 11:41 AM

So its quite clear to see that putting ANY resources into supporting fixes and patches in support of payware campaigns can onlly be to the detriment of the other work that ED are spreading themselves so thinly on given the amount of concurrent work ongoing.

Sobek, as you're making promises on behalf of ED, is there any chance you can guarantee the intent of actually finishing anything they start before making further announcements about new content and modules?
Posted By: Nate

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 04/29/16 01:46 PM

What about their support of the non-payware campaigns - any objections to that?

Nate
Posted By: Sobek

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 04/29/16 02:11 PM

Originally Posted By: Paradaz
Sobek, as you're making promises on behalf of ED, is there any chance you can guarantee the intent of actually finishing anything they start before making further announcements about new content and modules?


Did i say "ED promises you..."? I did not. You are once again being more than just liberal with your "quotes".
Posted By: Paradaz

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 04/29/16 03:46 PM

You're going back to these childish games again?

Originally Posted By: Sobek
Finally they [assuming you mean ED here] have at least one leg to stand on and you want them to go back? I can promise you that is not gonna do what you want.
Posted By: Paradaz

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 04/29/16 04:02 PM

Originally Posted By: Nate
What about their support of the non-payware campaigns - any objections to that?

Nate


Whether it's freeware or payware campaigns that is completely irrelevant. There are 30+ pages of discussion in this thread so surely you can see where the concern is.

When ED get involved in 3rd party campaigns then their involvement surely becomes more than just about receiving a cut of each unit sold, I would asssume they also have to undertake a certain level of support because they can't sell something via their store that is incompatible with DCS.

With DCS World evolving (that is being kind because the truth is that is unfinished/alpha/beta) or whatever definition ED care to call it, then there is always scope for incompatibilities to surface. Like I've said before, with new builds/versions and the merging of DCS branches is bound to mean that all these campaigns need to be revisited, tested and possible fixes and tweaks made to each campaign to ensure full compatibility on major updates and releases.

The more campaigns there are, the more work ED has to do for every change. I'd much prefer it if ED just focused their resources on the more important areas of the sim, i.e the core simulator before taking on all this other work which can only serve as a distraction. Yes, I'm sure some people will assume that only mission editors, texture artists etc would get involved with a campaign but that's rubbish especially as ED have already proven because patches that only serve to support a particular campaign have already been released therefore software devs and coders are undoubtedly involved too.

In a nutshell and this echos what JB and Tom Weiss has already said in their previous posts, with DCS constantly evolving they are not doing anyone (including themselves) any favours by having to support so many products when it means revisiting them on such a regular basis. If you look at my very first post in this thread and the couple of quotes I included from last year this is exactly what the concern is.
Posted By: Nate

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 04/29/16 04:14 PM

Originally Posted By: Paradaz

The more campaigns there are, the more work ED has to do for every change. I'd much prefer it if ED just focused their resources on the more important areas of the sim, i.e the core simulator before taking on all this other work which can only serve as a distraction. Yes, I'm sure some people will assume that only mission editors, texture artists etc would get involved with a campaign but that's rubbish especially as ED have already proven because patches that only serve to support a particular campaign have already been released therefore software devs and coders are undoubtedly involved too.


Ok lets follow your argument for a minute, I'm not saying I agree though, what about 3rd party aircraft? Surely these would be much much more involving and complex in this regard? No Objections there?

Nate
Posted By: Paradaz

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 04/29/16 04:21 PM

The key difference being that the 3rd party partners will either be aware of major engine changes (or should be if ED are giving this level of information to them) and therefore are aware long in advance about the effects it will have on their module and secondly are likely to carry out a lot of the required changes themselves as ED are updating their own engine. (At least this is what any professional company would be doing)

Someone supplying a campaign is not going to be given the same level of integration knowledge and tools and be expected to change their campaigns to support ED's work.
Posted By: - Ice

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 04/29/16 04:28 PM

Isn't ED just making more work for both themselves and 3rd party devs by having two versions of the game? IIRC, the VEAO guy said they had to end up with 6 versions of the Hawk just to make it available on the two versions of the game.

This is like Microsoft asking people to make programs for Windows 11 while Windows 11 is still in alpha, then release Win11 to the masses, but now Photoshop, MS Office, and game developers have to "do the dance" each time Microsoft patches Windows 11. Nope. Better make the core program (the OS) stable first.
Posted By: Paradaz

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 04/29/16 04:29 PM

^^^^ Exactly

As good as DCS is when things do go right, the honest truth is that it is an absolute mess. Probably a shining example of how not to develop a product.

It really is no wonder that releasing anything on time is such an ordeal.
Posted By: Nate

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 04/29/16 04:48 PM

Originally Posted By: Paradaz
The key difference being that the 3rd party partners will either be aware of major engine changes (or should be if ED are giving this level of information to them) and therefore are aware long in advance about the effects it will have on their module and secondly are likely to carry out a lot of the required changes themselves as ED are updating their own engine. (At least this is what any professional company would be doing)

Someone supplying a campaign is not going to be given the same level of integration knowledge and tools and be expected to change their campaigns to support ED's work.


I just see assumptions based on no evidence there. I could also assume that 3rd Party campaign makers receive the required level of integration knowledge and tools to support EDs work. There is no evidence either way, yet you assume the worst, why is that?

As to the assumption that they are not expected to change their campaigns to support ongoing DCS changes, I find highly unlikely. Why do other 3rd party creators have to support this but not campaign makers? What evidence are you basing this assumption upon?

Nate
Posted By: Paradaz

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 04/29/16 06:09 PM

It's based on a campaign maker not needing specialist tools beyond what is already provided to them as part of the product in comparison to aircraft developers.

ED like any other company will only give tools to people that absolutely require them in order to protect their IP. Perhaps you care to explain why the SDK is so closely guarded even though they like to come across as supporting the map makers within the community. Its not rocket-science as to why they take the approach they have done.

You may say I have no evidence but you're not providing any either in your counter-argument, and as you've admitted in the past you're none the wiser than any of the customers. A lot of opinion is based on common sense but when discussing ED's business practice its often pointless because it seems to be something they use very little of.
Posted By: Nate

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 04/29/16 06:31 PM

Originally Posted By: Paradaz
It's based on a campaign maker not needing specialist tools beyond what is already provided to them as part of the product in comparison to aircraft developers.


I don't quite see how this absolves 3rd party campaign makers from the responsibility of supporting their product. I also don't see what extra tools they'd require, other than the testing build they receive nightly.

Originally Posted By: Paradaz
You may say I have no evidence but you're not providing any either in your counter-argument, and as you've admitted in the past you're none the wiser than any of the customers. A lot of opinion is based on common sense but when discussing ED's business practice its often pointless because it seems to be something they use very little of.


Yeah I agree - there is no evidence, just assumptions. Neither of us know the contract between the the 2 parties. While you may assume a particular view, I may assume another. Neither being correct.

Nate
Posted By: Paradaz

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 04/29/16 07:18 PM

Originally Posted By: Nate
I don't quite see how this absolves 3rd party campaign makers from the responsibility of supporting their product. I also don't see what extra tools they'd require, other than the testing build they receive nightly. Nate


If ED didn't get involved with these campaigns the yes, the author would have the responsibility of updating. So, unless there is some sort of contract (and likely payment) in place whereby the author maintains the responsibility of updates which I think is unlikely then ED will be responsible.......the customers purchase these campaigns from ED's e-store. That alone gives them some responsibility.......responsibility which in all honesty I don't think they really need.

On the flip side who is to say ED don't care or haven't entertained the notion of broken campaigns with no intent to fix them as a matter of priority even though they have already taken payment from customers. They could quite easily hide behind 'everything is subject to change' and know that some of the customer base will defend them at all costs and tell others that DCS is a beta and we should expect this to happen......given that this already happens and ED are only too happy to release patches that make some modules become unworkable it probably wouldn't come as a surprise.
Posted By: Nate

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 04/29/16 07:47 PM

Originally Posted By: Paradaz
Originally Posted By: Nate
I don't quite see how this absolves 3rd party campaign makers from the responsibility of supporting their product. I also don't see what extra tools they'd require, other than the testing build they receive nightly. Nate


If ED didn't get involved with these campaigns the yes, the author would have the responsibility of updating. So, unless there is some sort of contract (and likely payment) in place whereby the author maintains the responsibility of updates which I think is unlikely then ED will be responsible.......the customers purchase these campaigns from ED's e-store. That alone gives them some responsibility.......responsibility which in all honesty I don't think they really need.


I suppose we both are entering into the realms of the unknown and assumptions again. I think my view of the 3rd party relationship differs from yours. I would have thought that 3rd party campaigns would remain the responsibility of the 3rd party to maintain, much the same as the other modules. Also revenue division for the campaigns would be modelled along the same lines as the other modules.

I think your view runs along the lines that these are contracted works, bought by ED?

However for example, if you look at the activity of Baltic Dragon in the forum for "The Enemy Within" campaign you'll see he is very active in listening to feedback and further improving the campaign. I would contend that he has an ongoing interest/responsibility in maintaining and improving the campaign. Of course, this is just an assumption.

Nate
Posted By: Jedi Master

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 04/29/16 07:49 PM

Neither BMS nor EECH are commercial products you can buy today, being supported by a company that exists today. They are 90s programs that have been modded beyond recognition, perhaps, but they are still products that saw commercial release last over 15 years ago.

Therefore, they do not count because they are not current retail SKUs. Just because some simmers like them doesn't mean they're competition for new products.



The Jedi Master
Posted By: Paradaz

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 04/29/16 07:54 PM

Originally Posted By: "Nate"
However for example, if you look at the activity of Baltic Dragon in the forum for "The Enemy Within" campaign you'll see he is very active in listening to feedback and further improving the campaign. I would contend that he has an ongoing interest/responsibility in maintaining and improving the campaign. Of course, this is just an assumption.



Agreed, however 'improving' campaigns is very different to fixing a campaign that becomes broken due to ED evolving and maturing DCS World.

Of course the original author has a vested interest in a campaign as his/her name is behind it however we're also moving away from the point here....

Who is responsible for testing that a campaign is fully integrated and compatible with new builds/branches of the core sim before release to the public? Who is responsible for checking that an ED patch doesn't break a campaign before it gets into the hands of the masses?...This can only be done by ED and not the campaign author. Again, it just points to resources used by ED that would otherwise be valuable in other areas.

There are some howling errors and bugs being released in recent patches, the last thing anyone needs is less time being spent on the core sim due to new campaigns that will constantly need revising and are increasing in count every month meaning more and more additional work at every major DCS upgrade.
Posted By: Nate

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 04/29/16 08:33 PM

Originally Posted By: Paradaz

Who is responsible for testing that a campaign is fully integrated and compatible with new builds/branches of the core sim before release to the public? Who is responsible for checking that an ED patch doesn't break a campaign before it gets into the hands of the masses?...This can only be done by ED and not the campaign author. Again, it just points to resources used by ED that would otherwise be valuable in other areas.


Why can't the Author test on the nightly test builds? Or the Branches that are forked for release?

Nate
Posted By: Tom_Weiss

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 04/29/16 08:45 PM

Originally Posted By: Nate
Originally Posted By: Paradaz


are forked for release?

Nate


true, some releases are forked.
Posted By: Paradaz

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 04/29/16 09:46 PM

Originally Posted By: Nate
Why can't the Author test on the nightly test builds? Or the Branches that are forked for release?

Nate


The author can and should test.......but he/she isn't necessarily going to know about every single change and dependency that is affected by the patch. The bigger question is probably why should the campaign author be responsible for changes and revisions needed for a campaign due to ED making alterations to the core sim.
Posted By: - Ice

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 04/29/16 09:53 PM

Originally Posted By: Jedi Master
Neither BMS nor EECH are commercial products you can buy today, being supported by a company that exists today. They are 90s programs that have been modded beyond recognition, perhaps, but they are still products that saw commercial release last over 15 years ago.

Therefore, they do not count because they are not current retail SKUs. Just because some simmers like them doesn't mean they're competition for new products.


BMS has never been a product you can buy, but you **CAN** buy Falcon 4.0 via The Falcon Collection on Steam or GoG. While Falcon 4.0 is no longer "supported," BMS does have a very active "independent dev team" who, considering what they've done to a very old sim, are quite dedicated and talented individuals. I'm less familiar with EECH though so I'll hold my comments on that. A quick eBay search does easily turn up copies of EECH for around £10 though.

If the criteria is "current availability," then Falcon BMS at least counts. Maybe not before this Tommo/new license thing where the only source of a legit copy of Falcon 4.0 were extortionate eBay prices, but with TFC on Steam/GoG, then that has made Falcon 4.0 and BMS available again.

If the criteria is "support by publishers/developers," then yeah, Falcon BMS is obviously supported by the BMS team and has the "offical blessing" by the copyright owner(s). Again, I'm not so familiar with EECH but isn't it also being worked on as shown by the activity on the EECH sub-forum?

The fact is that a 15+ year old game is still a valid alternative and is an in-depth, full switchology sim with a better (faultier?) campaign engine. It also has the F-15 (E version, I believe), F-18, and Harrier jets. So I guess in a way, you are correct. DCS falls short as competition. wink
Posted By: Nate

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 04/29/16 09:58 PM

Originally Posted By: Paradaz
The author can and should test.......but he/she isn't necessarily going to know about every single change and dependency that is affected by the patch. The bigger question is probably why should the campaign author be responsible for changes and revisions needed for a campaign due to ED making alterations to the core sim.


I'd imagine ongoing product maintenance is part of the 3rd party agreement - it certainly seems to be for the aircraft modules anyway. I don't see why a 3rd party campaign should be different in this regard. Again just assumptions on my part, I don't know the details.

Nate
Posted By: Nate

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 04/29/16 10:02 PM

Originally Posted By: - Ice
So I guess in a way, you are correct. DCS falls short as competition. wink


That's very true, which is odd, because it is oft said that DCS only exists because it has no competition smile

Nate
Posted By: Force10

Re: Campaign after Campaign - ED's new focus - 04/29/16 10:38 PM

I agree with Ice for the most part. BMS gets more stick time on my computer than DCS does. That's odd for a title that "can't be considered competition". wink

You could argue that the current DCS is somewhat just an upgraded version of Flanker 2.0 from the 90's...similar to how BMS is an upgrade from Falcon from the 90's. They even kept the same Black Sea map for 20 years.

smile
Posted By: Nate

Re: Campaign after Campaign - ED's new focus - 04/29/16 10:48 PM

I'd go back as far as Flanker 1 to be honest - can still see the direct lineage to DCS in the GUI structure, among other things.

Nate
Posted By: toonces

Re: Campaign after Campaign - ED's new focus - 04/29/16 10:59 PM

I get where JM is going with the BMS comment. I don't necessarily agree, but I see his point.

Having said that, BMS remains installed on my system. To be perfectly honest, I don't even know how to reinstall DCS on my computer, what modules work with which version, or what. I'm sure I can figure it out with Google, but honestly I just can't be bothered.

What I can do, and have done, is completely stop buying ED products until this entire process is...fixed isn't the word, but maybe, until this is a product that fills that hole I'm wanting filled.

If FC3 was their money-maker, I just can't understand the resistance to capitalize on that. And, as mentioned a few posts back by Jerkzilla, I am most definitely making an assumption that an FC3 plane can be cranked out in a fraction of the time of a DCS:A-10 module.

I say this with absolutely no evidence to back it up, but I'll wager that the vast majority of users only use a fraction of the capability of a DCS-level aircraft. To be able to do that for multiple aircraft would be very impressive. The bottom line is that there are some things you need to have a good, enjoyable combat flight sim, and some things you just don't.
Posted By: - Ice

Re: Campaign after Campaign - ED's new focus - 04/29/16 11:05 PM

I just want to make my position clear --- although I may come across as a BMS fanboi at the moment, there was actually a time where I knew of BMS being released but still continued flying DCS A10C and DCS Black Shark 2. However, DCS soon lost me after that. Competition is good; having choices is good. However, DCS is not something I would consider "competition" at the moment, and the ball is entirely in ED's court. They seem to be bumbling buffoos with three left feet at the moment.

I would love to be proven wrong by DCS. I would love to see them pull their collective sh-t together and get their act going.

As it stands, BMS has more maps and more aircraft, both of which are in better states of completion than DCS's offerings. I'm done being a beta tester for ED; my sim time (what little of it I have) is better spent flying and fighting in the sim, not fighting the sim. biggrin
Posted By: SkateZilla

Re: Campaign after Campaign - ED's new focus - 04/29/16 11:09 PM

BMS Has 1 Aircraft, (Though Multiple Variants Modeled)
w/ 3D Cockpits and Externals of Other Aircraft Skinned onto the above said systems.
Posted By: Force10

Re: Campaign after Campaign - ED's new focus - 04/29/16 11:14 PM

Originally Posted By: SkateZilla
BMS Has 1 Aircraft, (Though Multiple Variants Modeled)
w/ 3D Cockpits and Externals of Other Aircraft Skinned onto the above said systems.


What it does have is an engaging and immersive campaign system complete with a lively battlefield...something ED has fallen way short on since Flanker. I would rather have one heavily detailed aircraft that gives me a reason to want to fly it in a war-like scenario...then 20 different aircraft that grow tiresome in a lifeless and sterile environment.

That's just my preference though...different people are after different things.
Posted By: scrim

Re: Campaign after Campaign - ED's new focus - 04/30/16 12:21 AM

1 aircraft, sure. But it's a modern multirole fighter.

Aaand that's it ladies and gentlemen, BMS has won the match!


Not only a modern multirole, but also several versions of it, as well as a multitude of modern weapons that are missing in DCS. And of course, something that makes it enjoyable for more than a month or two in total.
Posted By: Tom_Weiss

Re: Campaign after Campaign - ED's new focus - 04/30/16 01:49 AM

Originally Posted By: Force10
I agree with Ice for the most part. BMS gets more stick time on my computer than DCS does. That's odd for a title that "can't be considered competition". wink

You could argue that the current DCS is somewhat just an upgraded version of Flanker 2.0 from the 90's...similar to how BMS is an upgrade from Falcon from the 90's. They even kept the same Black Sea map for 20 years.

smile


Because of FSX I never managed to find the time for BMS, which is a pity, but the more time I spent with FSX, the better it got, and then P3D came and it got even better and I missed all the latest BMS updates.

DCS is a very nice sim, once it is not your main flight sim, you grow more tolerant of its delays and development problems, and from a skin maker perspective, it can be very entertaining smile
Posted By: Sobek

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 04/30/16 09:14 AM

Originally Posted By: Paradaz
You're going back to these childish games again?


It is hardly childish for me to clarify when i'm not understood.

Especially so when you skew my position in the discussion.

Originally Posted By: Paradaz

Originally Posted By: Sobek
Finally they [assuming you mean ED here] have at least one leg to stand on and you want them to go back? I can promise you that is not gonna do what you want.


None of that implies that i made a promise in a capacity for ED. I made a promise. The entity of ED is separate from me. ED had no part in it. I can do that, you know?
Posted By: Paradaz

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 04/30/16 10:41 AM

I'm not skewing anything, I included your quote.

You're talking about ED and their possible intent to move in a certain direction in argument to what someone else has said. I don't know if it's lost in translation but the quote is clearly nonsense as you're not in any position to make such a promise. Forums are for opinion yes, but you're not expressing an opinion with that statement, you're just talking absolute rubbish.
Posted By: - Ice

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 04/30/16 01:35 PM

Originally Posted By: SkateZilla
BMS Has 1 Aircraft, (Though Multiple Variants Modeled)
w/ 3D Cockpits and Externals of Other Aircraft Skinned onto the above said systems.


[sarcasm on]Yeah, because the F-16 has 4 MFDs, right? And it can do VTOL as well, right? It is also capable of carrier traps without ripping the undercarriage off, obviously.

I'm also quite sure that the F-18 and Harrier jets have the same flight characteristics of the F-16. After all, it's just an F-16 re-skinned, right?[/sarcasm off]

You seriously think the BMS devs would lower their standards to just putting different aircraft skins on?
Posted By: CyBerkut

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 04/30/16 01:37 PM

FWIW, it was clear to me that:

"I can promise you that is not gonna do what you want."

was a representation of Sobek's certainty that the proposed action would not accomplish a desirable result. It was not worded as a representation of E.D.'s position upon the proposal, but rather as Sobek's assessment of the proposal's outcome if enacted.
Posted By: Paradaz

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 04/30/16 02:03 PM

It wasn't clear to me otherwise I wouldn't be disputing it.

Generally, a 'promise' isn't a representation of anything.....perhaps 'I think' in this instance would be a lot closer to reality.
Posted By: toonces

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 04/30/16 09:18 PM

It's easy to get drawn into a BMS vs. DCS discussion, which certainly isn't my point. I hold BMS up as a standard though, to explain my point that it is not necessary to model everything at the DCS A-10 level of complexity.

To some extent the aircraft other than the F-16 ARE re-skinned F-16's. But to leave it at that is, in my opinion, to oversimplify things. While the underlying avionics and systems are F-16, virtually everything else is unique to the other aircraft. The BMS F-18 is pretty remarkable to fly, even understanding that it is not completely true to the actual aircraft.

But so what? And that's the point. For many, many of us, it doesn't have to be completely realistic to the F-18 to be "good enough." If you must have a hardcore, fully simulated experience, you have the F-16...just like in DCS you have quite a few aircraft- A-10 and Blackshark and MiG-21 for sure. So if that's what you want, you have options. But every single DCS module doesn't have to be at that level of modeling.

Am I crazy here?

I'd probably feel the same way, frankly, even if it was possible to crank out DCS-level jets at a rapid pace. The truth of the matter is that I'm starting to find BMS just too complex anymore.

At the end of the day, I want DCS to succeed. I just want to fly and have fun. Right now I can't, and I see the potential, but I can't enjoy it in its current state and that frustrates me.
Posted By: - Ice

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 05/01/16 12:21 AM

Originally Posted By: toonces
At the end of the day, I want DCS to succeed. I just want to fly and have fun. Right now I can't, and I see the potential, but I can't enjoy it in its current state and that frustrates me.

+1

I don't see the point on insisting that other aircraft are simply "re-skinned" F-16s though. Just because they team did not "start each aircraft from scratch," it doesn't mean the new aircraft has just been re-skinned. If they are just truly F-16s with a different "skin," then why do other aircraft (Hornet, Harrier, etc.) have characteristics not present on the F-16?

EDIT: If anyone could clarify what they mean by "re-skinned F-16s," I'd be very grateful. I don't think I fully understand the phrase at the moment, or perhaps the phrase is being used inappropriately?
Posted By: Barra1

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 05/01/16 06:05 AM

I have stated this in other forums, and without being too critical of ED, as I don't know what there financial position has been in the past, my greatest disappointment is that 3rd party developers have struggled along and continue to struggle along with continual bug fixes and feature additions for each version of the ED engine. It would have made more sense to have taken a more strategic approach. "We want to create an environment that will attract 3rd party developers in order to broaden appeal. Ok, let's look at other platforms that are successful eg. FSX, what do they have? A stable and mature engine. Ok we are working on something called EDGE. Let's put all our resources into getting this up and running, then we will let the 3rd party developers loose."

A classic example of this is DCS Hawk and DCS c101. Initially they were to have multiplayer support for backseat operations. Oh, wait ED have decided they won't implement that feature as originally planned so the 3rd party developers and customers get to suck eggs. Oh, but if you buy the ED module l139 you get that feature.

Things like this are wearing away at my patience.
Posted By: - Ice

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 05/01/16 09:44 PM

Well, that fault lies with ED and not with 3rd party devs, right?
Posted By: SkateZilla

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 05/02/16 03:19 PM

Originally Posted By: Troll
Originally Posted By: - Ice
If anyone could clarify what they mean by "re-skinned F-16s," I'd be very grateful. I don't think I fully understand the phrase at the moment, or perhaps the phrase is being used inappropriately?


I think you may have got stuck at the "skin" comment (make a comment about skin and a guy gets interested, yea, I know! ;))
What SkateZilla wrote was: "3D Cockpits and Externals of Other Aircraft Skinned onto the above said systems". The clue here being "systems". Yes, the Hornet, Harrier, Viggen, etc. may have their own tweaked flightmodels, but the systems are the same as for the F-16. I haven't tried BMS lately, but isn't it so that the radar, HUD and MFDs are the same in all aircraft?

Anyway, that's how I interpreted the comment. smile


^Thanks, Exactly what I meant,

No Different than the DCS Mods that Use New External Models and the F-15C, A-10C, MiG-29, or Su-2x Avionics to avoid having to code their own Systems.
Posted By: Jedi Master

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 05/02/16 03:22 PM

As someone who hasn't bought a used car since 1993, I can tell you that when I'm shopping for a car to replace the one I'm ready to dump, I NEVER look at preowned cars. Doesn't matter if it's low mileage. Doesn't matter if it's a rare car now out of production. As far as I'm concerned, it's a lateral move from what I have, it's not sufficient as a replacement. No used car is competition.

In the same vein, BMS is a used sim. EECH is a used sim. Unlike used cars, however, I actually used them. I played hundreds of hours of F4 and EECH over the last 15 years, but I freely admit it was almost all in the first 5 years after release. Once F4AF came out, I played that for about 100+ hrs and never went back to F4. Once LP whimpered and shriveled up and died, I lost interest. I tried playing the mods, but it felt like more of the same. Someone had repainted and reupholstered the used cars I'd had for years, but they were still the same cars.

DCS is a new sim. It has used elements to it, like keeping the tires from the old car until you can get new ones, but it's still new. I'm not saying it's the best new car I've ever had, in fact I'm very frustrated with it quite often, but it's still a new sim and not a used one.

As such, DCS' competition is Il-2:BoS/BoM, FSX/P3D, and ROF. SF2 for a while was competition at the casual level, but it's done. ROF is likely done as well, although not enough time has passed to be certain. I've never said "I'm not going to get Arma 3, I'll just replay OFP again" or "I'm not liking the way this new Doom game looks, I'm going to reinstall Doom 2 and play that again instead." I've played those old ones to death, they don't compete with the new ones.

I don't know how I can be any clearer. Maybe you're someone who happily buys used cars in order to get a better one than you could afford new, but I'd always a pick new cheaper car over a used more expensive one for the same money. A $40k car new vs an $80k car used that's going for $40k? Give me new!
Likewise while I can fly EECH and BMS for free, I prefer to fly BoS and DCS because I have so much less time in them that they don't feel old hat from the second I boot them up. To me there is no competition.





The Jedi Master
Posted By: Force10

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 05/02/16 05:05 PM

Originally Posted By: Jedi Master
To me there is no competition.

The Jedi Master


While I see your point...there are over 25,000 people that would disagree with you going by the BMS website. Many would rather have a highly refined fast mover sim, than one that has a bunch of mis-matched aircraft thrown together with equally mis-matched ground units set in equally mis-matched theaters in a constant state of Alpha.

If you want a complete sim with a realistic battlefield and all the radio traffic, AI flights, ground units, immersive campaign etc...DCS can't compete with BMS IMO. "New" and shiny doesn't always mean better.

To each his own.
Posted By: Nate

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 05/02/16 05:10 PM

You have to wonder then what does DCS offer that BMS doesn't? It would seem that DCS does in fact have quite active competition, despite the oft repeated mantra that it only exists because there is no competition for it.

Nate
Posted By: scrim

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 05/02/16 05:45 PM

It has prettier graphics, helos, and some useless WW2 planes. And that's about it. There's no competition in the sense that there's no other commercial, combat focused, study-level flight sim under development ATM.
Posted By: Nate

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 05/02/16 06:19 PM

So because BMS is not commercial, that invalidates its ongoing development? It can't be considered competition because it isn't sold?

In every other respect it seems to be direct competition. And, according to this thread, ahead of DCS in most respects, especially on price.

Nate
Posted By: SkateZilla

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 05/02/16 06:23 PM

BMS Single Handily keeps Falcon 4.0 Selling, So it's Commercial By I.P. Relationship to Falcon 4.


Originally Posted By: Nate
You have to wonder then what does DCS offer that BMS doesn't? It would seem that DCS does in fact have quite active competition, despite the oft repeated mantra that it only exists because there is no competition for it.

Nate


A more Diverse Aircraft Selection.



I have nothing against BMS or Falcon 4, or 3, or AT, I've Flown all of the old ones, and Still fly BMS, as there is no F-16 or MRF in DCS at the moment.

As soon as F-18C comes out that will change a lil, The F-16 is by far my favorite USAF Jet though.
Posted By: AZAviator

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 05/02/16 07:03 PM

+1 Skate! Excited for the F-18C to be released and hoping for an F-16 in the future.
Posted By: MigBuster

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 05/02/16 07:14 PM

Originally Posted By: SkateZilla
BMS Single Handily keeps Falcon 4.0 Selling, So it's Commercial By I.P. Relationship to Falcon 4.



Agree, cant see how it isn't competition, and JM would if he had actually used the modern Benchmark Sims version.
Posted By: - Ice

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 05/02/16 07:14 PM

Originally Posted By: Troll
I think you may have got stuck at the "skin" comment (make a comment about skin and a guy gets interested, yea, I know! ;))


OMG, I think I'll have to agree with you there!! biggrin

Originally Posted By: Troll
What SkateZilla wrote was: "3D Cockpits and Externals of Other Aircraft Skinned onto the above said systems". The clue here being "systems". Yes, the Hornet, Harrier, Viggen, etc. may have their own tweaked flightmodels, but the systems are the same as for the F-16. I haven't tried BMS lately, but isn't it so that the radar, HUD and MFDs are the same in all aircraft?

Anyway, that's how I interpreted the comment. smile


Just because you push the throttle forward and the plane goes up in the air, doesn't mean all aircraft are the same. I cannot see how the BMS team can re-skin the F-16 into an F-18 and not immediately get flak from the BMS community. There have been so many arguments about IFF and Link-16 that I cannot see the community "overlooking" a re-skinned F-16/F-18. Also, the F-18 has 4 MFDs whereas the F-16 only has 2. Sure, an MFD is an MFD, but I can only imagine what they needed to do to add 2 more MFDs to the code. And what about the Harrier? If you think that's just a "tweaked" flight model, then all cars today are just "tweaked" 4-wheel chariots.

Is the F-15C radar code really different from the Su-2x code? Or does it just have different values? Is the flight model for the F-15C really built from the ground up and totally different from the Su-2x flight model? Or does it just have different values? I would think all aircraft would have a common set of parameters, things like weight, max AoA, max airspeed, stall speed, etc. If you think one aircraft has max AoA = 15 and another aircraft has max AoA = 12 (just throwing numbers around as an example) and the two aircraft is the same with one just having a "tweaked" flight model, then all aircraft in FSX are just "tweaked" Cessnas.

I will admit I've not delved "under the hood" of BMS so much and have not even taken the other aircraft up for a spin so I can't really comment, but I'll ask a question over there to see if I can learn more.



Originally Posted By: Jedi Master
As someone who hasn't bought a used car since 1993, I can tell you that when I'm shopping for a car to replace the one I'm ready to dump, I NEVER look at preowned cars. Doesn't matter if it's low mileage. Doesn't matter if it's a rare car now out of production. As far as I'm concerned, it's a lateral move from what I have, it's not sufficient as a replacement. No used car is competition.

In the same vein, BMS is a used sim. EECH is a used sim. Unlike used cars, however, I actually used them. I played hundreds of hours of F4 and EECH over the last 15 years, but I freely admit it was almost all in the first 5 years after release. Once F4AF came out, I played that for about 100+ hrs and never went back to F4. Once LP whimpered and shriveled up and died, I lost interest. I tried playing the mods, but it felt like more of the same. Someone had repainted and reupholstered the used cars I'd had for years, but they were still the same cars.

DCS is a new sim. It has used elements to it, like keeping the tires from the old car until you can get new ones, but it's still new. I'm not saying it's the best new car I've ever had, in fact I'm very frustrated with it quite often, but it's still a new sim and not a used one.

As such, DCS' competition is Il-2:BoS/BoM, FSX/P3D, and ROF. SF2 for a while was competition at the casual level, but it's done. ROF is likely done as well, although not enough time has passed to be certain. I've never said "I'm not going to get Arma 3, I'll just replay OFP again" or "I'm not liking the way this new Doom game looks, I'm going to reinstall Doom 2 and play that again instead." I've played those old ones to death, they don't compete with the new ones.

I don't know how I can be any clearer. Maybe you're someone who happily buys used cars in order to get a better one than you could afford new, but I'd always a pick new cheaper car over a used more expensive one for the same money. A $40k car new vs an $80k car used that's going for $40k? Give me new!
Likewise while I can fly EECH and BMS for free, I prefer to fly BoS and DCS because I have so much less time in them that they don't feel old hat from the second I boot them up. To me there is no competition.


What makes you think BMS is a pre-owned car? Why not look at it like a 2016 Mustang? Sure, you might've driven a 1969 Mustang and loved it, but I wouldn't call the 2016 Mustang "pre-owned" just because it has an older brother of the same name.

I see where you're getting at here. I too like the look and smell of new. However, I bought a new car called DCS and also a new (or used) car called BMS. DCS was expensive and I had to pay extra for cruise control and chrome trim. BMS was cheaper and came with all extras as standard. DCS was exciting at first, but later showed it's flaws.... it's a pain going from 2nd to 3rd gear and each tune up means I need to re-adjust my steering column, my seat distance, back rest angle, and so on. BMS was also exciting at first, and so far is showing less flaws than DCS. Fuel economy is actually better, and tune ups doesn't necessarily mean having to adjust my seat/wheel to get my ideal driving position back.

$40K car new vs. $80K used car that is going for $40K? I'm with you! Give me new! But that's not what we're talking about here. We're talking about a $40 "new" DCS A-10C (I'm using that as it's the cheapest module) vs. a $10.40 "new" BMS 4.33.1. Your "new" DCS A-10C only comes with the Warthog, and whatever free aircraft is included in DCS World. You also only have the Black Sea map. My "new" BMS 4.33.1 comes with the F-16, F-18, Harrier, and other aircraft as well as the Korea, Balkans, Israel, and other maps.

So do I want to buy a "new" car at $40 that only comes in basic trim? Or do I want to buy a "new/used" car at $10.40 that comes with a few bells and whistles?

You played F4, then played F4AF and never went back to F4 because you say F4AF is better. F4AF doesn't hold a candle to BMS now; it's not a fair fight. The even scarier thing is that it has so much depth that an independently-modded game from 15+ year old code has left a professionally-produced game eating dust.

You are indeed correct. There is no competition. You just have it the other way around. Once you have 100+ hours in DCS Module A and another 100+ hours in DCS Module B and another 100+ hours in DCS Module C, you might start to wonder how come some people have 1,000+ hours in just one other simulation.



Originally Posted By: Force10
While I see your point...there are over 25,000 people that would disagree with you going by the BMS website. Many would rather have a highly refined fast mover sim, than one that has a bunch of mis-matched aircraft thrown together with equally mis-matched ground units set in equally mis-matched theaters in a constant state of Alpha.

If you want a complete sim with a realistic battlefield and all the radio traffic, AI flights, ground units, immersive campaign etc...DCS can't compete with BMS IMO. "New" and shiny doesn't always mean better.

To each his own.


If you want awesome screenshots or sweet YouTube videos of beautiful aircraft, DCS will win hands down. If you want sweaty palms because you've just been jumped by a flight of 4, if you want to be hoarse from shouting "AWACS, DECLARE!!!" because you don't want to shoot down a friendly but there's a bad guy out there, if you want to come home from a "mission failure" as you failed to bomb that nuclear plant because you had to drop ordnance to help out in a dogfight, if you don't mind that mission fail because you need a minute or two to calm down because you just nursed your frail F-16 into the alternate airfield, well, as you said, BMS is free. Give it a try.



Originally Posted By: Nate
You have to wonder then what does DCS offer that BMS doesn't? It would seem that DCS does in fact have quite active competition, despite the oft repeated mantra that it only exists because there is no competition for it.

So because BMS is not commercial, that invalidates its ongoing development? It can't be considered competition because it isn't sold?

In every other respect it seems to be direct competition. And, according to this thread, ahead of DCS in most respects, especially on price.


A lot of things... as a game: fast-moving multirole aircraft. Quite a few of them now with 4.33.1. Lots of different theatres. Assets that can both help and threaten the player. Dynamic campaign where curveballs can actually be seen as a bonus.

As a sim: updates bring new things, and brings more new stuff than breaking old stuff. No promises of delivery, better dev respect from the community, and a clearer focus on what they're doing and what they plan to do.

I will say that DCS has a lot of promise, yes. A lot of potential, yes. But a pedal bicycle will still beat a Ferari in a drag race since the car driver doesn't seem to have a clue as to how to operate his machine. The potential is there. The sad thing is that at the rate we're going.... I may be close to retirement age before any of that potential will finally be brought forth.
Posted By: - Ice

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 05/02/16 07:18 PM

Originally Posted By: SkateZilla
As soon as F-18C comes out that will change a lil, The F-16 is by far my favorite USAF Jet though.


Originally Posted By: AZAviator
+1 Skate! Excited for the F-18C to be released and hoping for an F-16 in the future.



Things will change... heck, I'd add on the F-14 there as well! However, the ability to keep people in the sim will be the next issue. Sure, people will come back to try out the new aircraft, but will they find enough in DCS at that time to stay? Will they find enough in DCS at that time for it to be a competition between BMS for a simmer's precious free time?

Unfortunately, BMS already has an F-18 so it cannot be avoided to be compared to that one. I hope DCS does the aircraft justice, but even then, it'll have it's other issues to work out.
Posted By: Nate

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 05/02/16 07:36 PM

Originally Posted By: - Ice

A lot of things...


I think you may have read my question backwards smile

Nate
Posted By: - Ice

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 05/02/16 09:50 PM

True, Troll, thanks! The rest of it was in response to the original question, not for you biggrin

Nate, indeed I did!! LOL! mycomputer
Posted By: toonces

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 05/02/16 09:58 PM

Ice,
I'll make this very easy for you. Take the DCS:A-10 up for a spin. Then take the BMS A-10 up for a spin. You will immediately see the lack of accuracy in the A-10 in BMS compared to the DCS version. Same with the MiG-21. At the end of the day, the jets other than the F-16 all share the limitations of sharing the F-16's avionics. Yes, they can have more MFD's, different flight modeling, etc., but the guts of the plane are still the F-16's.

That doesn't make then not fun to fly. On the contrary, there are plenty of folks like me that spend more of their time in the add-on jets than the F-16. But to give credit where it is due, while the BMS team has done a remarkable job with the add-on aircraft, they are not nearly of the caliber of a full-blown DCS module.

In my opinion, what DCS brings to the table that BMS cannot match is a full digital battlefield with combined fixed wing, rotary wing, and ground operations. Really ARMA 3 is the only competitor in this category, but you know the limitations you have with ARMA.

The potential is mind-boggling. ED could really corner the market if they could fully realize the capabilities of the software they have. What I mean is that the idea is sound, but the parts lack cohesiveness. And it's not very fun as a "game" but that's another discussion which we've beat to death before.
Posted By: - Ice

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 05/02/16 11:31 PM

Originally Posted By: toonces
At the end of the day, the jets other than the F-16 all share the limitations of sharing the F-16's avionics. Yes, they can have more MFD's, different flight modeling, etc., but the guts of the plane are still the F-16's.

At what point is something considered "a whole new item" vs. "a re-skin"?

Originally Posted By: toonces
In my opinion, what DCS brings to the table that BMS cannot match is a full digital battlefield with combined fixed wing, rotary wing, and ground operations.

How exactly does DCS do that?

Originally Posted By: toonces
The potential is mind-boggling. ED could really corner the market if they could fully realize the capabilities of the software they have. What I mean is that the idea is sound, but the parts lack cohesiveness. And it's not very fun as a "game" but that's another discussion which we've beat to death before.

True! Very big potential, very poor execution.
Posted By: nadal

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 05/02/16 11:51 PM

@At what point is something considered "a whole new item" vs. "a re-skin"?

I think it depends on whether people think it(re-using) is fake like when ICP operation in other plane is exact same as F-16's.
Posted By: Para_Bellum

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 05/02/16 11:53 PM

Originally Posted By: - Ice

How exactly does DCS do that?


You can have Hueys or Mi-8s fly to a forward base, pick up troops, then fly to an enemy-held city for an air assault. Ka-50s provide escort and AA defense. A-10s provide CAS. Friendly ground troops act as JTACs, designating targets with laser or smoke. Infantry advances and fights enemy infantry, mortars fire at spotted enemy concentrations, stinger teams provide AA defense, Medevac script for downed airmen etc...

I have lots of fun in such coop missions with DCS.
Posted By: - Ice

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 05/03/16 12:29 AM

Wouldn't the KA-50/Mi-8 be on the "other side"? See, that was our problem the last time my friends and I played DCS... there was no way to "integrate" the KA-50 and the A-10C in the battlefield, outside of the A-10C doing a "talk on" for the KA-50 pilot. Can DCS do this now? Is this now available for DCS?

How has CA improved over the last 3-4 years? Is it still ARMA-lite?

How difficult is it to script such a mission?
Posted By: streakeagle

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 05/03/16 12:50 AM

Call DCS a sim or a game... it doesn't bother me what you call it. I still have lots of fun with DCS. Because it doesn't float any one person's boat for reason X, Y, or Z doesn't mean it is utterly worthless for everyone or even a majority. It just so happens that DCS is the closest PC combat flight sim to what I would like to have. FSX with TacPack doesn't cut it for me. Falcon 4 doesn't cut it for me. Jane's F/A-18 doesn't cut it for me. I still like the Strike Fighters series, but I am having a lot more fun with DCS since the P-51D, UH-1, Mi-8, F-86, MiG-15, MiG-21, Bf109, and Fw190 have been released. There is enough variety in every aspect for me to never get bored.

As far as the original topic of the post: I have never enjoyed campaigns. It doesn't matter whether it is scripted or dynamic or something in between, campaigns are boring for me. It doesn't bother me that other people love campaigns. Nor does it bother me that someone who spends time making campaigns wants to get paid for it. If aircraft modules and/or terrain don't come with campaigns at all, no skin off my back. If a Korea, Vietnam, or Israel terrain/campaign ever gets released, I might try it out. But I have all of those in the SF series games and rarely played them.

How can anyone come to the conclusion that selling campaigns has become the "focus" of ED? Clearly, DCS 2/NTTR has consumed significant game engine development resources. If we can take ED at its word, it has also been simultaneously making progress on the F/A-18, Normandy map, WW2 fighters, etc. All of the third party developers seem to be focused on various aircraft (and in some cases terrain and possibly campaigns/missions to go with them).

You can argue all day about the lack of direction of EDs development and the pace of progress, but DCS has made tremendous progress since I first bought LOMAC. As I have little interest in ground attack or modern fire-and-forget air-to-air weapons, the addition of WW2 and Cold War era aircraft is what really got me to commit to DCS World. Not FC3. NOt the A-10 or Ka-50.

Since whether something is "a good game" or "worth playing" is extremely subjective, most of the above opinions about DCS (and they are just that, not facts) need to be qualified with "not a good game for me" or "not worth playing for me" etc. If liking something that you don't like makes me a "fanboi", then feel free to label me as such for disagreeing with you. But its not like I am blindly loyal to DCS -- I own just about every other sim that covers my interests. It is just that DCS has finally reached a point where it is the best air combat sim / game currently available FOR ME.
Posted By: - Ice

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 05/03/16 01:13 AM

Originally Posted By: streakeagle
Call DCS a sim or a game... it doesn't bother me what you call it. I still have lots of fun with DCS. Because it doesn't float any one person's boat for reason X, Y, or Z doesn't mean it is utterly worthless for everyone or even a majority. It just so happens that DCS is the closest PC combat flight sim to what I would like to have. FSX with TacPack doesn't cut it for me. Falcon 4 doesn't cut it for me. Jane's F/A-18 doesn't cut it for me. I still like the Strike Fighters series, but I am having a lot more fun with DCS since the P-51D, UH-1, Mi-8, F-86, MiG-15, MiG-21, Bf109, and Fw190 have been released. There is enough variety in every aspect for me to never get bored.

As far as the original topic of the post: I have never enjoyed campaigns. It doesn't matter whether it is scripted or dynamic or something in between, campaigns are boring for me. It doesn't bother me that other people love campaigns. Nor does it bother me that someone who spends time making campaigns wants to get paid for it. If aircraft modules and/or terrain don't come with campaigns at all, no skin off my back. If a Korea, Vietnam, or Israel terrain/campaign ever gets released, I might try it out. But I have all of those in the SF series games and rarely played them.

How can anyone come to the conclusion that selling campaigns has become the "focus" of ED? Clearly, DCS 2/NTTR has consumed significant game engine development resources. If we can take ED at its word, it has also been simultaneously making progress on the F/A-18, Normandy map, WW2 fighters, etc. All of the third party developers seem to be focused on various aircraft (and in some cases terrain and possibly campaigns/missions to go with them).

You can argue all day about the lack of direction of EDs development and the pace of progress, but DCS has made tremendous progress since I first bought LOMAC. As I have little interest in ground attack or modern fire-and-forget air-to-air weapons, the addition of WW2 and Cold War era aircraft is what really got me to commit to DCS World. Not FC3. NOt the A-10 or Ka-50.

Since whether something is "a good game" or "worth playing" is extremely subjective, most of the above opinions about DCS (and they are just that, not facts) need to be qualified with "not a good game for me" or "not worth playing for me" etc. If liking something that you don't like makes me a "fanboi", then feel free to label me as such for disagreeing with you. But its not like I am blindly loyal to DCS -- I own just about every other sim that covers my interests. It is just that DCS has finally reached a point where it is the best air combat sim / game currently available FOR ME.


clapping

Well said! Indeed, if what you are looking for is more along the lines of variety and less along "study sim," then DCS would be a good fit! I could never understand why someone would buy a Phantom or Viper or Hornet for use in FSX, but obviously that floats someone's boat, just not mine. Anyway, excellent post!
Posted By: Para_Bellum

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 05/03/16 10:05 AM

Originally Posted By: - Ice
Wouldn't the KA-50/Mi-8 be on the "other side"? See, that was our problem the last time my friends and I played DCS... there was no way to "integrate" the KA-50 and the A-10C in the battlefield, outside of the A-10C doing a "talk on" for the KA-50 pilot. Can DCS do this now? Is this now available for DCS?

How has CA improved over the last 3-4 years? Is it still ARMA-lite?

How difficult is it to script such a mission?



"Talk on" is pretty much the preferred way of designating targets in the Ka-50 for A-10s. When flying the Huey I use a script that lets me release coloured smoke. I can then use the smoke location for further talk-on.

CA has indeed improved, but it's still very basic. We mainly use it to direct ground forces and when playing JTAC. It's also good fun when manning an AA vehicle and surprising the flyboys. wink
Posted By: scrim

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 05/03/16 10:17 AM

It's a petty BST couldn't be bothered to include some nice "hey crew chief, toss smoke" function, would be a nice thing to have for gauging wind at an LZ.
Posted By: Para_Bellum

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 05/03/16 10:42 AM

If you have a good mission designer he'll spawn smoke on a LZ for you. wink



And the script that lets you drop smoke can be easily added to any mission.
Posted By: carrick58

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 05/03/16 03:17 PM

yep

Para bellum is spot on. The troops in the field nearly always use smoke for the incoming slicks and other reasons. A couple of reason: Where they are located for pickup and the spot where the LZ was chosen. The smoke gives the wind direction for landing. Lastly, Smoke was or is used as last minute I.D. to prevent ambush. For example, The radioman on the ground would say smokes out and the incoming slick would reply with what color of smoke.popcorn
Posted By: SkateZilla

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 05/03/16 03:42 PM

Originally Posted By: - Ice
Originally Posted By: SkateZilla
As soon as F-18C comes out that will change a lil, The F-16 is by far my favorite USAF Jet though.


Originally Posted By: AZAviator
+1 Skate! Excited for the F-18C to be released and hoping for an F-16 in the future.



Unfortunately, BMS already has an F-18 so it cannot be avoided to be compared to that one. I hope DCS does the aircraft justice, but even then, it'll have it's other issues to work out.


I dont think that would be fair to the BMS F-18.

As the DCS F-18C will be Authentic Systems of a Fleet F-18C (Block hasnt been announced yet).

Where as the BMS Hornet is a F-18 w/ F-16 Systems Mapped to a F-18C Cockpit, and doesn't pretend to be anything more.

As for DCS: F-18C, It'll likely get more comparisons between FSX and Prepar3d Offerings, In Which Case the FSX Acceleration F-18C is Abysmal, and the VRS Bug is the Super Bug.
Posted By: scrim

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 05/03/16 04:09 PM

Just out of interest, since you seem so certain about DCS: F/A-18C not being vaporware: When will all of this be? Will it actually be before the last RL F/A-18C has been sent to a museum or scrapyard?

Besides, last time I checked the BMS team had stated they were aiming for much the same fidelity level for the Hornet. It's WIP, the U1 update featured updates to the Hornet FLCS. That's more than ED can come dragging with after years of claims.
Posted By: SkateZilla

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 05/03/16 04:54 PM

Originally Posted By: scrim
Just out of interest, since you seem so certain about DCS: F/A-18C not being vaporware: When will all of this be? Will it actually be before the last RL F/A-18C has been sent to a museum or scrapyard?

Besides, last time I checked the BMS team had stated they were aiming for much the same fidelity level for the Hornet. It's WIP, the U1 update featured updates to the Hornet FLCS. That's more than ED can come dragging with after years of claims.


In BMS, FLCS and Flight Model are Unique to the Hornet, but ALL the Avionics and Combat Systems are from the F-16.

The Combat Systems are Probably the most complex part of the coding process and they skipped it and stitched the F-16 Avionics to the F-18 Cockpit.


As for DCS: F/A-18C.. This Year.
Posted By: theOden

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 05/03/16 05:05 PM

[quote=SkateZilla..
As for DCS: F/A-18C.. This Year.[/quote]

Damnit SkateZilla, you just triggered something in my veins smile
Posted By: Art_J

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 05/03/16 05:56 PM

Whoa, Skate, that's a ballsy prediction to throw in the face of all grumpy characters over here biggrin.
Posted By: SkateZilla

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 05/03/16 06:20 PM

That's the Stated Time Frame from the Newsletter Dated 1/29/2016.

Word for Word it was: "Later in 2016 we plan to release the Hornet as an “Early Access” product"
Posted By: theOden

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 05/03/16 06:41 PM

bleh, I thought it was something more solid than a newsletter :/

/returns to hibernation/
Posted By: cdelucia

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 05/03/16 07:09 PM

Okay, beta will be released 2016. That makes sense. For a minute I thought you were claiming the full release. Wonder how that A/G radar is coming along. . .
Posted By: Jedi Master

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 05/03/16 07:10 PM

Originally Posted By: - Ice


You are indeed correct. There is no competition. You just have it the other way around. Once you have 100+ hours in DCS Module A and another 100+ hours in DCS Module B and another 100+ hours in DCS Module C, you might start to wonder how come some people have 1,000+ hours in just one other simulation.



No, I will never understand that. Ever. I don't have 1000 hours in any game of any genre, will never happen. I will be bored with it long before then. I think 500 hrs is my high mark in anything, after that I just have no interest in revisiting it. It could be a function of my memory. I remember things extremely well to the extent that a TV show I saw 10 years ago is still so fresh in my mind I can remember most of the show when I rewatch it.

In fact, at the current development pace I think it's quite likely that by the time DCS World is what I want it to be, I will be tired of flying it and leave it to gather dust. Maybe if I'd waited 5 years to start I'd be in a better spot, but I just tire of them after a few hundred hours and that's why I can't bring myself to even try BMS.

To return to the car analogy, it's like that sports car you had in college that you really loved, sold when you graduated, but would never consider buying again because a sports car no longer fits your needs. Like streak, my ideal DCS World is a larger, supported version of SF2...with the better multiplayer, graphics, and advanced modeling (in some planes, but not all) to make it a more well-rounded product than SF2's limited focus. I don't need more study planes, frankly I don't have enough time in any bird but the Ka-50 to call myself well-acquainted with them, I need FC3 planes with just a little more care.

I'm getting the Hornet because I want the Hornet, not another A-10C-level plane, but I will fly it like it's a FC3 plane. I will never learn more than the basics I need to fly and fight. I've had the MiG-21 since release and still have barely managed to learn enough to fight a single underarmed fighter or a transport.




The Jedi Master
Posted By: Schwalbe

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 05/03/16 07:40 PM

me

me

me

....


after years of reading these kinda threads, i finally see what it's about. and it's only a handful of ppl.

sigh.

so long, and thanks for all the fish.


----->
Posted By: Force10

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 05/03/16 07:44 PM

Originally Posted By: Jedi Master
that's why I can't bring myself to even try BMS.


Sorry Jedi...I'm not going to put much stock into someone that states "BMS can't be considered competition" from someone that hasn't even tried it. The rest of your argument is just noise since you don't have first hand knowledge of what you're talking about.

BMS is NOT Falcon 4.0 or AF. I'm a long time Falcon 4.0 and AF veteran myself(since 98)...and BMS was a breath of fresh air. It's not just graphics...the systems have been upgraded substatially.

Even with your excellent memory...you won't be able to deploy any weapons without learning the NEW procedures.
Posted By: - Ice

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 05/04/16 01:41 AM

Originally Posted By: Troll
DCS has the option to go all study-hard-b4-u-fly where you need to stick with a certain module for weeks to really learn how to use it.

Not really. I used to take people up on a flight where I'd teach takeoff, navigation, attacks with Mavericks, RTB, landing. Then another flight or two for CCIP/CCRP/ripple Mavs. So maybe 2-3 flights for a person to be able to kill stuff in the game. The nice thing about "study sims" is that once those "basics" are demonstrated, the simmer can spend years and years learning more and honing his skills.



Originally Posted By: Para_Bellum
"Talk on" is pretty much the preferred way of designating targets in the Ka-50 for A-10s.

I guess I was spoiled with data link and buddy lasing biggrin



Originally Posted By: SkateZilla
Originally Posted By: - Ice
Unfortunately, BMS already has an F-18 so it cannot be avoided to be compared to that one. I hope DCS does the aircraft justice, but even then, it'll have it's other issues to work out.


I dont think that would be fair to the BMS F-18.

As the DCS F-18C will be Authentic Systems of a Fleet F-18C (Block hasnt been announced yet).

Where as the BMS Hornet is a F-18 w/ F-16 Systems Mapped to a F-18C Cockpit, and doesn't pretend to be anything more.

As for DCS: F-18C, It'll likely get more comparisons between FSX and Prepar3d Offerings, In Which Case the FSX Acceleration F-18C is Abysmal, and the VRS Bug is the Super Bug.

See, that's the thing --- BMS F-18 has to work with what a 15+ year old engine can do. ED will have absolutely no excuse whatsoever.



Originally Posted By: SkateZilla
That's the Stated Time Frame from the Newsletter Dated 1/29/2016.

Word for Word it was: "Later in 2016 we plan to release the Hornet as an “Early Access” product"

And we are all familiar at ED's ability to meet their own targets. "Early Access" can also mean alpha, beta, or alpha-labelled-as-beta. biggrin



Originally Posted By: Jedi Master
No, I will never understand that. Ever. I don't have 1000 hours in any game of any genre, will never happen. I will be bored with it long before then. I think 500 hrs is my high mark in anything, after that I just have no interest in revisiting it. It could be a function of my memory. I remember things extremely well to the extent that a TV show I saw 10 years ago is still so fresh in my mind I can remember most of the show when I rewatch it.

In fact, at the current development pace I think it's quite likely that by the time DCS World is what I want it to be, I will be tired of flying it and leave it to gather dust. Maybe if I'd waited 5 years to start I'd be in a better spot, but I just tire of them after a few hundred hours and that's why I can't bring myself to even try BMS.

To return to the car analogy, it's like that sports car you had in college that you really loved, sold when you graduated, but would never consider buying again because a sports car no longer fits your needs. Like streak, my ideal DCS World is a larger, supported version of SF2...with the better multiplayer, graphics, and advanced modeling (in some planes, but not all) to make it a more well-rounded product than SF2's limited focus. I don't need more study planes, frankly I don't have enough time in any bird but the Ka-50 to call myself well-acquainted with them, I need FC3 planes with just a little more care.

I'm getting the Hornet because I want the Hornet, not another A-10C-level plane, but I will fly it like it's a FC3 plane. I will never learn more than the basics I need to fly and fight. I've had the MiG-21 since release and still have barely managed to learn enough to fight a single underarmed fighter or a transport.


First off, your argument is now moot as you've not even tried BMS. How can you diss the 2016 Mustang and say it can't compare to the 2015 Corvette on the basis of the 1969 Mustang you used to drive?

Secondly, if you get bored that easily, then I guess BMS/DCS/in-depth study sims are not for you. You said so yourself, you fly stuff like an FC3 aircraft, you want FC3 aircraft. Personally, when I went back to fly the Su-27/-33, having to manually dump chaff/flares and not being able to program a countermeasure-dispensing system just felt odd.

As far as hours go, well, when buying a new car and I realize people have 100+ hours in Car A then 100+ hours in Car B then 100+ hours in Car C, then I realize some people have 1,000+ hours in Car D, I would at least investigate Car D and figure out why people seem to love Car D so much. Car D must have something going for it. Is it more durable? Better economy? Better driving feel? Refusing to investigate is just being close-minded, or just-don't-care.
Posted By: streakeagle

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 05/04/16 04:05 AM

BMS is not Falcon 4.0? It may be heavily modded with new graphics and all kinds of refinements. But fly BMS or vanilla Falcon 4.0 the way I like to fly (focused purely on close range air-to-air) and there is very little difference after all of these years: in a 1 vs many air-to-air fight that goes WVR, get ready for the Conga line. If you have enough ammo, a dog chasing his own tail can eat it right up.

Whereas the "lite" SF series modeling of multiplane dogfights approaches historical results when given an accurate initial setup and the right pilot quality settings. I like clickable cockpits, but that is the last thing I am looking for in a combat flight sim. First would be flight modeling (including the look and feel when starting up, taking off, and landing), then the performance of weapons and systems (which is quite separate from the detail of the controls), then the AI's ability to fly and employ weapons and systems, fully detailed clickable cockpits is the icing on the cake.

Most DCS aircraft now have flight and system modeling equal or better than any PC flight sim out there. The AI is somewhere between Falcon 4 and Strike Fighters. Its biggest flaw besides cheating with simplified flight models is that the DCS AI responds predictably. If you play the same mission and follow the same path/actions, the AI will almost react exactly the same 100% of the time. Once you find the correct series of actions to misdirect the AI, you can consistently beat them.
Posted By: - Ice

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 05/04/16 09:25 AM

Originally Posted By: streakeagle
BMS is not Falcon 4.0? It may be heavily modded with new graphics and all kinds of refinements.

Where do you draw the line between Falcon 4.0 and something different? Where do you draw the line between LOMAC and DCS? Stable MP, full 6DoF cockpit, clickable cockpit with working gauges (even AF did not have this!), new theatres, refined flight models, and so on... sure, it may be heavily modded and refined, but just because a 1969 Mustang had an engine and 4 wheels doesn't mean the 2016 Mustang is just a "heavily modded and refined" 1969 Mustang. So where do you draw the line?

Originally Posted By: streakeagle
But fly BMS or vanilla Falcon 4.0 the way I like to fly (focused purely on close range air-to-air) and there is very little difference after all of these years: in a 1 vs many air-to-air fight that goes WVR, get ready for the Conga line.

Well, end of the day, it still simulates the F-16 so if Falcon 4.0 got that right, nothing much to change for BMS.

Originally Posted By: streakeagle
I like clickable cockpits, but that is the last thing I am looking for in a combat flight sim. First would be flight modeling (including the look and feel when starting up, taking off, and landing), then the performance of weapons and systems (which is quite separate from the detail of the controls), then the AI's ability to fly and employ weapons and systems, fully detailed clickable cockpits is the icing on the cake.

The icing is quite delicious, really! I used to fly AF and had a button on the HOTAS to switch between 2D and 3D view and it was alright doing that at the time, but when I transitioned from that to a fully working 3D pit, there was less disconnect in the immersion and the end result is a much more involved and enjoyable flight. I'll leave the arguments of FM and weapons/avionics to the guys that actually code and/or fly the F-16.
Posted By: Jedi Master

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 05/04/16 03:28 PM

Originally Posted By: Force10
Originally Posted By: Jedi Master
that's why I can't bring myself to even try BMS.


Sorry Jedi...I'm not going to put much stock into someone that states "BMS can't be considered competition" from someone that hasn't even tried it. The rest of your argument is just noise since you don't have first hand knowledge of what you're talking about.

BMS is NOT Falcon 4.0 or AF. I'm a long time Falcon 4.0 and AF veteran myself(since 98)...and BMS was a breath of fresh air. It's not just graphics...the systems have been upgraded substatially.

Even with your excellent memory...you won't be able to deploy any weapons without learning the NEW procedures.


That's what you're not getting--I don't care about that. The first time I tried the F4 RP in like 2002 I quit after an hour when I realized I couldn't drop an LGB because they added numerous steps to the procedure. The original F4 was as realistic as I needed it to be. I went for the RP/SP and so on because they added more depth to the world and corrected some of the deficiencies, not because I felt like it was too easy to drop bombs in F4.
I don't get enjoyment from switches. I don't get enjoyment from learning systems. I enjoy a plane that flies and fights realistically, but it's not my job. The systems on the plane is NOT the end game for me, it's using the plane in a realistic battlefield.

I've found many of the "no more FC3 planes, only DCS!" people seem to have latched onto using them as procedures trainers as the fun. I don't find that fun. It's the airplane equivalent of Linux vs Windows. When I fly, I want to use Windows, I don't want to have to worry about command line switches and remembering which command for which directory.

Here's the thing--I'm flying a sim. A sim which is to simulate not only an airplane, but a battlefield, and a pilot. I'm not in it to learn so much that I could hop in the actual plane and use it. That is too far. I don't care about radios, navigation beyond using a map (ie VOR/DME/ADF), tank pressurization, any of that. The pilot in the plane has to know that, but I expect it to happen automatically.

Imagine if you had to keep pressing a button on the keyboard to inhale, another to exhale, one to blink, one to make your mouth move to talk...there is a certain amount of work that is manual yet automatic. I expect the pilot I'm playing as to know that stuff already. I issue a command such as "drop gear" and I expect the gear to go down because the pilot knows how to do it. I don't want to have worry about unlocking it, moving the lever, all that stuff you need to do in MiG-21. Yeah, it's real, but no, I don't want to have to worry about it.

The problem is sims tend to fall into two extremes--do almost everything for you with a totally unreal world where 30 planes get thrown at you in one mission while success or failure hinges 100% on you, or do nothing for you at all while success or failure seems based less on your skills flying and fighting and more on whether you remember which button to hit in which sequence to make the missile actually come off the rail and guide, just so it can sail off to nowhere.
I want the middle ground, the one that could actually appeal to people by being grounded in reality but not requiring weeks of classroom study to be competent. Extra systems can be added in for the people that want it, but I don't want the two options to be "god mode radar and one button lock-shoot-kill" or graduate level avionics course work.




The Jedi Master
Posted By: Force10

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 05/04/16 04:08 PM


Everything you stated Jedi shows precisley how BMS can be competition for DCS. I think what you should be saying is "BMS can't compete with FC3 for ease of use"...that's seems more like the case.


Originally Posted By: Jedi Master
The systems on the plane is NOT the end game for me, it's using the plane in a realistic battlefield.



If you want a realistic "living" battlefield...DCS can't compete with BMS in this area. Like you...sometimes I just want to fly a quick sortie without having to "think" too much about getting ordinance off the plane. Even though I own FC3...I generally fire up Strike Fighters 2 with one of the various mods I have. For me it's about the campaign in most all flight sims...and DCS campaigns have a "One and done" feel to them.

I have not purchased any of DCS's pay ware campaigns, but I noticed that they only come with 3 activations. At first this bothered me a little bit, but in the end...how many times do you re-fly a DCS campaign and expect it to be different? This is where a campaign system like BMS shines IMO.

I would agree with you that BMS might not fit your particular set of needs...but to make the sweeping statement and analogies that it can't compete with DCS doesn't apply to the hardcore crowd that wants a complex sim.

wink
Posted By: MigBuster

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 05/04/16 04:32 PM

Originally Posted By: streakeagle
BMS is not Falcon 4.0? It may be heavily modded with new graphics and all kinds of refinements. But fly BMS or vanilla Falcon 4.0 the way I like to fly (focused purely on close range air-to-air) and there is very little difference after all of these years: in a 1 vs many air-to-air fight that goes WVR, get ready for the Conga line. If you have enough ammo, a dog chasing his own tail can eat it right up.

Whereas the "lite" SF series modeling of multiplane dogfights approaches historical results when given an accurate initial setup and the right pilot quality settings. I like clickable cockpits, but that is the last thing I am looking for in a combat flight sim. First would be flight modeling (including the look and feel when starting up, taking off, and landing), then the performance of weapons and systems (which is quite separate from the detail of the controls), then the AI's ability to fly and employ weapons and systems, fully detailed clickable cockpits is the icing on the cake.



The AI in Falcon is very impressive in A-A IMO and has actually been improved quite a lot (again in 4.33)...but it is optimised for using missiles and associated BVR tactics which is where 99% of the fighting is.

Yes there are certain jets that are good WVR in Falcon.........not sure whether the issue is individual FM, AI level or due to mode (e.g. instant action).

You said it there AIM-9X / JHCMS / AMRAAM is no place for you...they say modern flying is more systems management.

As for easy.........clickable pits do make things a lot easier........and dropping JDAM / JSOW / JASSM / LJDAM / SDB makes bomb dropping easy peasy even on RL avionics...........how did it go "I flew the whole mission on Altitude Hold"......it's amazing stuff and great fun.

So three very diverse but totally amazing simulators DCS/BMS/SF.....spoilt is all I will say.
Posted By: Derby

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 05/04/16 04:32 PM

Originally Posted By: Jedi Master
Originally Posted By: Force10
Originally Posted By: Jedi Master
that's why I can't bring myself to even try BMS.


Sorry Jedi...I'm not going to put much stock into someone that states "BMS can't be considered competition" from someone that hasn't even tried it. The rest of your argument is just noise since you don't have first hand knowledge of what you're talking about.

BMS is NOT Falcon 4.0 or AF. I'm a long time Falcon 4.0 and AF veteran myself(since 98)...and BMS was a breath of fresh air. It's not just graphics...the systems have been upgraded substatially.

Even with your excellent memory...you won't be able to deploy any weapons without learning the NEW procedures.


That's what you're not getting--I don't care about that. The first time I tried the F4 RP in like 2002 I quit after an hour when I realized I couldn't drop an LGB because they added numerous steps to the procedure. The original F4 was as realistic as I needed it to be. I went for the RP/SP and so on because they added more depth to the world and corrected some of the deficiencies, not because I felt like it was too easy to drop bombs in F4.
I don't get enjoyment from switches. I don't get enjoyment from learning systems. I enjoy a plane that flies and fights realistically, but it's not my job. The systems on the plane is NOT the end game for me, it's using the plane in a realistic battlefield.

I've found many of the "no more FC3 planes, only DCS!" people seem to have latched onto using them as procedures trainers as the fun. I don't find that fun. It's the airplane equivalent of Linux vs Windows. When I fly, I want to use Windows, I don't want to have to worry about command line switches and remembering which command for which directory.

Here's the thing--I'm flying a sim. A sim which is to simulate not only an airplane, but a battlefield, and a pilot. I'm not in it to learn so much that I could hop in the actual plane and use it. That is too far. I don't care about radios, navigation beyond using a map (ie VOR/DME/ADF), tank pressurization, any of that. The pilot in the plane has to know that, but I expect it to happen automatically.

Imagine if you had to keep pressing a button on the keyboard to inhale, another to exhale, one to blink, one to make your mouth move to talk...there is a certain amount of work that is manual yet automatic. I expect the pilot I'm playing as to know that stuff already. I issue a command such as "drop gear" and I expect the gear to go down because the pilot knows how to do it. I don't want to have worry about unlocking it, moving the lever, all that stuff you need to do in MiG-21. Yeah, it's real, but no, I don't want to have to worry about it.

The problem is sims tend to fall into two extremes--do almost everything for you with a totally unreal world where 30 planes get thrown at you in one mission while success or failure hinges 100% on you, or do nothing for you at all while success or failure seems based less on your skills flying and fighting and more on whether you remember which button to hit in which sequence to make the missile actually come off the rail and guide, just so it can sail off to nowhere.
I want the middle ground, the one that could actually appeal to people by being grounded in reality but not requiring weeks of classroom study to be competent. Extra systems can be added in for the people that want it, but I don't want the two options to be "god mode radar and one button lock-shoot-kill" or graduate level avionics course work.




The Jedi Master


I can fully understand your point of view and I don't see why DCS can't offer both, especially since they've opened up to 3rd Party devs, but like a lot of the DCS crowd I'm the exact opposite. I'm very happy with the direction DCS is going and I really hope that they are going to continue that way because they are the only developer on the market who is willing to develop and support a complex simulator like DCS. I'll be honest, I wouldn't buy a FC3 level plane - they do not appeal to me.
Everytime I get up in the F-15 I whish the radios, the INS and other nav systems and the radar were simulated in detail. For me, it would increase the useability of the airplane immensely. I don't think I'm going to touch it apart from some very short flights once the F/A-18 and the F-14 are out.

Take the Gazelle for example. I just spend a weekend learning its system and handling characteristics. I'm in no way an expert on the thing but I can fly it pretty well - I know how to start it up, shut it down and use most of its systems (next step is the NADIR). It's the most fun I've had with a helicopter in DCS and I've flown and enjoyed the Huey extensively: I've done everything from simple navigation flights to Gunship and troop transport, MEDEVAC, CSAR etc. I also dabbled with the Mi-8 but I think it really needs Multicrew to make it enjoyable to me.

I love the A-10C, it's my go to fixed wing in DCS because of its complexity and detail, the MiG-21 and Mirage 2000C being a close second and third.

With all that being said there are mods coming up that might be right up your alley: an A-4 and a Buccaneer. I'll try them because they are free but I honestly can't see myself flying them a lot.
http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=163181
http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=159823
Posted By: Flogger23m

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 05/04/16 05:59 PM

Originally Posted By: Jedi Master
I'm getting the Hornet because I want the Hornet, not another A-10C-level plane, but I will fly it like it's a FC3 plane. I will never learn more than the basics I need to fly and fight. I've had the MiG-21 since release and still have barely managed to learn enough to fight a single underarmed fighter or a transport.


The Jedi Master


Agreed with you. If I get the Hornet I'll just learn enough for basic combat, and maybe the few air to ground weapons I use the most. Probably the AGM-65, 88 and 84. I won't bother with the radio functions and just use F10 to navigate.
Posted By: toonces

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 05/04/16 11:06 PM

I totally get where you're coming from, JM. I always thought that Freefalcon was the best version of Falcon 4.0 because it was complex, but not overly complex. Truly, I'm struggling to keep my head above water with BMS anymore. I really should invest the time to learn and play it properly.

@ Streakeagle- I know you probably won't try this, but if you're into WVR fighting you might want to at least consider trying BMS with Molnibalage's 80's theater. He did a lot of work tweaking the entire database to get it accurate to about mid-1980. The F-16s don't even have AIM-7s! It will get you WVR a lot, but it's brutally hard without the BVR weapons.

I'm not sure it even works with the current 4.33.1 version of BMS, but if you're interested I can try and find out.

On topic, I'll probably buy and invest the time to learn F/A-18C and/or F-14, so maybe the discriminator is how much I want to fly the plane to decide how much time I'm willing to spend trying to enjoy it.
Posted By: - Ice

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 05/04/16 11:37 PM

@ Jedi:

The mistake you made was comparing BMS vs. DCS. Both are study-level sims. If you had said BMS vs. FC3, then it would align more with your statements about FC3 and what you're looking for in the game.

Having said that, there aren't really too many steps in employing weapons in study-level sims. You can drop stuff CCIP/CCRP and be done with it. You can designate a steerpoint for an IAM and drop it. It's when you get to fancier stuff such as ripple-dropping IAMs onto different targets, LGBs, buddy lasing, target handoff, etc. that all the other systems come into play. All those "options" needs "menus" in order to be set properly and work properly.



Originally Posted By: toonces
I totally get where you're coming from, JM. I always thought that Freefalcon was the best version of Falcon 4.0 because it was complex, but not overly complex. Truly, I'm struggling to keep my head above water with BMS anymore. I really should invest the time to learn and play it properly.

I'm curious as to what has been added that made BMS "overly complex"?
Posted By: toonces

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 05/04/16 11:58 PM

A simple example would be the requirement for a data cartridge and radio management in BMS. In Freefalcon your data cartridge was automatically set...there was no need to set threat points, EWS systems, etc. And the radios auto-tuned to the correct frequency, for example the correct tower for whatever airfield you were within range of. BMS adds these requirements and, while they're certainly realistic, they add a layer of complexity that, for me, is unnecessary. It actually detracts from my enjoyment of the game.

There are other weapon employment requirements that exist in BMS that simply were not there in Freefalcon. Specifics elude me at the moment, but I can assure you that I find it much more difficult to drop a weapon like a HARM or LGB in BMS than it was in Freefalcon.

I don't say this to take away from BMS, but rather that, for me, I had plenty of complexity with Freefalcon.

Similarly with DCS, I would like more options below the "DCS-level" aircraft. I'd spend more time with the FC3 lineup, which are quite well done, if I didn't have to map every single one of them to my HOTAS, and if I didn't have to have so many keyboard commands memorized/written down to do simple functions. This is where the clickable cockpit becomes important. Being able to adjust MFD functions, for example, or flip a switch like the gear or hook or lights or whatever, with a mouse is far easier for me than having to hunt for the correct key stroke.
Posted By: streakeagle

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 05/05/16 01:36 AM

Originally Posted By: toonces

@ Streakeagle- I know you probably won't try this, but if you're into WVR fighting you might want to at least consider trying BMS with Molnibalage's 80's theater. He did a lot of work tweaking the entire database to get it accurate to about mid-1980. The F-16s don't even have AIM-7s! It will get you WVR a lot, but it's brutally hard without the BVR weapons.


This still wouldn't overcome the limitations of the AI. It is the least capable air-to-air AI I can recall in any of the sims I have ever played (except maybe Jane's USAF?). Aside from somewhat ugly terrain, SF2 provides a much better experience out of the box without any modding with the added bonus that I get to fly the most accurate rendition in any combat flight sim of the overall flight and combat capabilities of my all-time favorite, the F-4 Phantom.

Super agile, light-weight, fly-by-wire, fire-and-forget 90% PK missile carrying F-16's in a modern Korea represent pretty much the exact opposite of what I prefer to fly. If I loved the F-16 the way I loved the F-4, I would learn to tolerate the AI and almost exclusively fly BMS. But in the same way that I appreciated the greatness of DCS:A-10C, but never flew it much, I appreciate all the things that BMS does yet still don't like it and won't invest much time in it.

Posted By: - Ice

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 05/05/16 10:14 PM

Originally Posted By: toonces
A simple example would be the requirement for a data cartridge and radio management in BMS. In Freefalcon your data cartridge was automatically set...there was no need to set threat points, EWS systems, etc. And the radios auto-tuned to the correct frequency, for example the correct tower for whatever airfield you were within range of. BMS adds these requirements and, while they're certainly realistic, they add a layer of complexity that, for me, is unnecessary. It actually detracts from my enjoyment of the game.


Data cartridge simply allows for so many "customization" options that can further add to the immersion -- put pre-planned threats (SAM rings), put a tanker track or FLOT on the MFD, customize your CMDS programs for the upcoming mission and anticipated threats, mark your alternate airfield, and so on. However, you don't have to do this if you don't want to. You can set your CMDS programs once and just use them again and again and again. The absolute minimum you'd have to do is to set UHF 15 to Tower frequency and it'll set it to your airfields frequency. If you keep flying out of Kunsan, you can even skip this step.... but I'd recommend making it a habit so as not to forget it if you suddenly fly out of a different airbase.

Simply put, the DTC can be set once and then forgotten or minimally adjusted for each flight. The complexity is there if you want it, but you can fly without it.


Originally Posted By: toonces
There are other weapon employment requirements that exist in BMS that simply were not there in Freefalcon. Specifics elude me at the moment, but I can assure you that I find it much more difficult to drop a weapon like a HARM or LGB in BMS than it was in Freefalcon.


More difficult? Or was FF just "less realistic"? I don't know, I never touched FF. I would be more inclined to think that as more accurate avionics gets implemented, more options or more steps get added but these are more along the line of how it is done in the real jet.


Originally Posted By: toonces
This is where the clickable cockpit becomes important. Being able to adjust MFD functions, for example, or flip a switch like the gear or hook or lights or whatever, with a mouse is far easier for me than having to hunt for the correct key stroke.


Yep, that's why I love 3D cockpits! Less memorizing keystrokes and more of simply "doing" things!


Originally Posted By: streakeagle
Super agile, light-weight, fly-by-wire, fire-and-forget 90% PK missile carrying F-16's in a modern Korea


Ah, if only this was true! 90% PK is overrated, but I guess that depends who is firing and who is fired upon. Suffice to say I've seen many a TacView of good pilots evading 4 or even 6 AIM-120s, go into a dogfight on the defensive, manage to reverse the positions, and take out the other guy with a guns kill. But for AI, yeah, it can be dumb for most of the time.
Posted By: theOden

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 05/05/16 10:36 PM

oh yes, FreeFalcon had a more "automated" environment and as toonces says - many of the extras in BMS falls into button mashing area.

With DCS labled, or should i say non-FC, planes it has moved even more into forcing the player to learn and repeat procedures.

What we lost on the way is the very "Air Combat Simulation".

I want to use the planes as the tools they are in a war zone, if I missed setting a frequency isn't really relevant such as what profiles I can fly with the known opposition and what muntions I should have best success carrying.

Can my striker engage that two ship heading for me and still manage my primary mission or should I evade, or even RTB and save my flight for the next mission.

Air Combat Simulation, not Airframe Simulation.

I can admit I do like all details of the A-10C, P-51D and MiG-15. But I think i experience much less air combat today compared to earlier in sims such as FreeFalcon or IL2.

To keep true to the topic, new campaigns are ok and could help move me (us?) back to aircombat but when presented and created as a mafia brotherhood, something is missing.
Posted By: toonces

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 05/05/16 11:51 PM

^ Yes. Freefalcon was definitely less realistic and automated many things that require more attention or steps in BMS because they're implemented more closely to real life.

The nice thing about DCS is that you can have your cake and eat it too. If you want the super hard core realism, you have A-10, etc. If you want the lite experience you have FC3. What I'm saying is that I wish there was a middle ground between these two levels of realism, or at least that the FC3-level planes had a clickable cockpit- for the reasons I've already mentioned.

I've never built a flight simulator or DCS aircraft, but I have to think there are realism shortcuts they could take that would a) allow that middle ground I'm talking about, and b) allow them to crank out a module more quickly because it requires less development.

Those guys making the Buc and A-4 mentioned earlier are on the right track. I wish DCS would embrace that, and just add that little more to make them really awesome.

On subject, scripted campaigns do absolutely nothing for me. In fact, I'm probably the anti-Streakeagle in this regard. I'm either all-in on dynamic campaigns, or else multiplayer. ARMA 3 is a classic example of a sim that keeps me highly entertained completely due to its multiplayer aspect.
Posted By: - Ice

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 05/06/16 12:15 AM

Doesn't the A-10C have scalable difficulty? I remember there was the DCS-level then there was the 3rd-person view with a 360 "radar" biggrin That would be cool, although I assume it would also mean a lot of work.

As for what you are saying toonces and theOden, I totally get you. IIRC in AF, threats and waypoints and stuff were automatically entered in the DTC. Such is the price we pay for "customizability," perhaps? Anyway, I wonder if you select a flight in BMS, fast-forward the time to just AFTER takeoff, and enter the jet... would that be configured "properly"? Maybe just skip to just before the IP and then you skip the ramp start, ingress, etc. and go straight to the action?

As for the airbase frequency issue, if we implement it as you suggest, then we end up with DCS-style comms menu where you select which airbase to talk to.... sure, that'll work, but I find the "menu" to be weird. Heck, I find the whole comms system of DCS weird (disclaimer: if they've changed the comms menu in the last 4 years, then I'm talking about the old menu system) and had to "talk" to AI or airbases by saying the menu numbers instead of the actual command phrase.
Posted By: toonces

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 05/06/16 01:28 AM

Well, BMS isn't going to start redacting their realism, so the discussion is moot. I can tell you that everything with comms worked fine the way it was in Freefalcon and below. Yes, I understand there are advantages to the way it is done now, I'm just saying that it's one extra step I personally don't need.

It's funny but back way before BMS went live, maybe 6-12 months prior, I was talking to Hustler (Steve) on the phone. Hustler ran Freefalcon. We were talking about the future of Freefalcon and he started talking about BMS, which I was pretty unfamiliar with. He had spoken with Cobracab, and Hustler was telling me that BMS's vision was to make Falcon 4 so realistic that players would need to refer to actual F-16 flight manuals to fly the sim!

In essence my reply was that that would be an epic failure, that normal simmers would balk at that kind of realism and flock to Freefalcon.

We all know how well I called that!

So, perhaps, again, I've got this all wrong. Maybe the masses are clamoring for the full DCS treatment of each and every new module. It's not how I feel, but I could have this totally wrong about everyone else.
Posted By: scrim

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 05/06/16 01:46 PM

To me at least, it's not just about modelling everything from the details of every radar mode down to the air conditioning; It's about providing an environment to put all of this to practice as well. That's what I like about BMS, that it provides all of these different weapons and features, and a dynamic campaign where it's all useful. Unlike DCS, where it just doesn't matter if they'd get an F-16 with everything it has in BMS. The fun would stop dead in its track the moment I'd learned it all, because from that point onward it wouldn't be much more than a target shoot occasionally interrupted by an AI trying to shoot back.
Posted By: - Ice

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 05/06/16 11:21 PM

Yeah, this is why I didn't get the SuperBug.... sure, it looks pretty on the screenshots and maybe it has accurate avionics, but I'm not interested in just flying around.

toonces, what exactly are you referring to that is "moot"? As for BMS, yeah, they are striving for "as accurate as possible" which is a good thing or a bad thing depending on what you're looking for. On the plus side, they at least know what they want and the path they make towards their goal is clear so as a simmer, I know exactly whether BMS is going to be worth my time or not.
Posted By: EightBall

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 05/07/16 12:54 AM

Originally Posted By: - Ice
On the plus side, they at least know what they want and the path they make towards their goal is clear so as a simmer, I know exactly whether BMS is going to be worth my time or not.


Fact is, ED also know what they want. It's just that some people can't cope with ED's long term goal.

With DCS, ED isn't trying to create a modern Falcon4 or a military counter-part to FSX and X-Plane.
As explicitely written on the DCS World product page : DCS is a true "sandbox" simulation that can and will cover multiple time periods covering many types of combat and civilian units.
https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/products/world/

This is something new, this is something different. Some people are surprised it takes time, those who understand it, aren't.
Posted By: - Ice

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 05/07/16 01:22 AM

Originally Posted By: EightBall
Fact is, ED also know what they want. It's just that some people can't cope with ED's long term goal.

That may very well be true, but that isn't shown in any way at all in their track record.

Originally Posted By: EightBall
As explicitely written on the DCS World product page : DCS is a true "sandbox" simulation that can and will cover multiple time periods covering many types of combat and civilian units.

In other words, "spread ourselves too thin that the product suffers from lack of focus."

As for the long term goal/taking time, I'm pretty sure my grandkids will enjoy DCS. thumbsup
Posted By: Nate

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 05/07/16 01:36 AM

Originally Posted By: - Ice
As for the long term goal/taking time, I'm pretty sure my grandkids will enjoy DCS. thumbsup


I will be ecstatic, if anybody can achieve what they're aiming to do, quicker.

Nate
Posted By: EightBall

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 05/07/16 02:02 AM

Originally Posted By: - Ice
I'm pretty sure my grandkids will enjoy DCS. thumbsup

Yup, ED will most likely be the only currently active developer still around at that time.
Posted By: Johnny_Redd

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 05/07/16 04:27 AM

Originally Posted By: EightBall


Fact is, ED also know what they want. It's just that some people can't cope with ED's long term goal.

With DCS, ED isn't trying to create a modern Falcon4 or a military counter-part to FSX and X-Plane.
As explicitely written on the DCS World product page : DCS is a true "sandbox" simulation that can and will cover multiple time periods covering many types of combat and civilian units.
https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/products/world/

This is something new, this is something different. Some people are surprised it takes time, those who understand it, aren't.

It's a shame that, unlike FSX and X-Plane, the sdk isn't available for all. Where would Razbam be without the FSX sdk. It's a shame that DCS is so closed off from the modding community. Yes there are modders but they are restricted to texturing. those modders that produce aircraft get no help from ED. It surprises me but the buccaneer and the A4 mods in development show more work than same 3rd parties have shown and those guys should be congratulated for working in such a mod unfriendly environment.
I don't think you know EDs long term goal, I'm not sure ED are 100% sure of their long term goal outside of their military contracts. As a consumer product, these study sim planes make zero financial sense. They take years to develop, They are not what the consumer wants, let's be honest, given the choice of the l-39 or an F-16, who would chose the l-39? If it wasn't a military contract there's no way they'd make money on that choice. Given the choice of Nevada or Afghanistan who would chose Nevada?
If ED were given a military contract tomorrow to model the F35 for military training the Hornet and everything else would be put on hold. That's the way it is. ED are not an entertainment company. There really is no long term goal for the consumer product.
Posted By: Paradaz

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 05/07/16 07:25 AM

^^^ Exactly

And this is the reason ED stumble from one area to the next with no clear direction in th desktop area.

They're reactive to their commercial arm rather than pro-active for the desktop products.

Like Johnny says, if ED got a new military contract tomorrow the whole landscape for desktop projects would change again. I don't buy into ED having a clue what direction they're heading in at all and their track record and choices they've made along the way reflect this.

It's frustrating and disappointing at the same time because they do release good products (eventually). I just fear that the so-called 'vision' of DCS will never ever be realised. Lets be honest, given how long its taken to get to the stage they are at now and it's still only the tip of the iceberg I don't think our grandkids will get all the fun either. God forbid an engine upgrade into DX13 in 5 years time.......
Posted By: - Ice

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 05/07/16 11:11 AM

Originally Posted By: Nate
I will be ecstatic, if anybody can achieve what they're aiming to do, quicker.


I would settle for if when they say "we will release X on this date," that they actually do it.


Originally Posted By: EightBall
Yup, ED will most likely be the only currently active developer still around at that time.


Unlikely. More likely would be some other group like the BMS devs pick up the peices and put ED to shame.


Originally Posted By: Johnny_Redd
I don't think you know EDs long term goal, I'm not sure ED are 100% sure of their long term goal outside of their military contracts. As a consumer product, these study sim planes make zero financial sense. They take years to develop, They are not what the consumer wants, let's be honest, given the choice of the l-39 or an F-16, who would chose the l-39? If it wasn't a military contract there's no way they'd make money on that choice. Given the choice of Nevada or Afghanistan who would chose Nevada?
If ED were given a military contract tomorrow to model the F35 for military training the Hornet and everything else would be put on hold. That's the way it is. ED are not an entertainment company. There really is no long term goal for the consumer product.


Given the choice between the Gazelle or the Apache, which one do you think would sell out faster? This has boggled my mind for ages. Given the right selection of aircraft and theatres, ED could probably print out their own money. But instead, they choose to go on all sorts of branching directions. Excellent input, Johnny! +1,000!


Originally Posted By: Paradaz
It's frustrating and disappointing at the same time because they do release good products (eventually). I just fear that the so-called 'vision' of DCS will never ever be realised. Lets be honest, given how long its taken to get to the stage they are at now and it's still only the tip of the iceberg I don't think our grandkids will get all the fun either. God forbid an engine upgrade into DX13 in 5 years time.......


I loved the A-10C. I bought BS2 as support for ED; I had little interest in the Shark but ED showed so much promise and potential at that time. And the Hog and the Shark are indeed very, very good products! It's just sad and disappointing that everything else has fallen behind.
Posted By: II_JG77_Con

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 05/07/16 01:51 PM

I love the modules but like many here are saying , its not getting anywhere . I dont want to spend $60 on a module with no content .
Posted By: Sobek

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 05/08/16 04:53 PM

If you're looking at a picture and you can't help but think that the author just stumbled from one colored pixel to the other without a sense of direction or composure, it might be that you are simply standing too close.
Posted By: Paradaz

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 05/08/16 05:38 PM

Very philosophical.

........or it could just be that ED are reactive to their commercial contracts which is why they change direction so much.

You nor anyone else couldn't hope to explain why they would have planned to release the content they have done in the order they have done without playing pin the tail on the donkey at least once, whilst blindfolded wth their arms tied behind their backs and sat on the back of a horse.....naked and drunk.
Posted By: Johnny_Redd

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 05/08/16 07:52 PM

If one is looking too closely at what one is told is a Da-Vinci and steps back to see a Pollock what then?
It appears to myself and others ED have started with oils moved onto water colours and then decided to throw anything at the canvas in the hope some form will appear.
You question the doubters eyesight and perspective but offer none of your own. Tell me Sobek? What is the picture ED are trying to paint?
Posted By: Sobek

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 05/08/16 09:01 PM

I've wasted enough of my time on these boards trying to offer a different point of vew to people that have their mind set. It is a fools errand really.
Posted By: - Ice

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 05/08/16 10:02 PM

Originally Posted By: Sobek
I've wasted enough of my time on these boards trying to offer a different point of vew to people that have their mind set. It is a fools errand really.


You oppose people's views with your own but offer no evidence or proof to backup YOUR points. People complain ED has no direction and your response is "you're standing too close to the TV"???
Posted By: Sobek

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 05/09/16 05:14 AM

Originally Posted By: - Ice
Originally Posted By: Sobek
I've wasted enough of my time on these boards trying to offer a different point of vew to people that have their mind set. It is a fools errand really.


You oppose people's views with your own but offer no evidence or proof to backup YOUR points. People complain ED has no direction and your response is "you're standing too close to the TV"???


Funny, usually when i did offer "backup", people were complaining that i was inhibiting their right to express their opinion, that they didn't come here to be "corrected", some would even go as far as telling me to stop posting.

That's hardly your fault, but the irony is still amazing.

We're getting somewhat OT though.
Posted By: Tom_Weiss

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 05/09/16 03:24 PM

Originally Posted By: - Ice
Originally Posted By: Sobek
I've wasted enough of my time on these boards trying to offer a different point of vew to people that have their mind set. It is a fools errand really.


You oppose people's views with your own but offer no evidence or proof to backup YOUR points. People complain ED has no direction and your response is "you're standing too close to the TV"???


Posted By: LOF_Rugg

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 05/09/16 11:21 PM

Originally Posted By: Sobek
I've wasted enough of my time on these boards trying to offer a different point of vew to people that have their mind set. It is a fools errand really.

So if we don't think like you, you're wasting your time? No one elses opinion is as important as yours? Who do you think you are? A "progressive" American voter? Seriously though, it ain't about you, Sobek. Ever think that maybe there's so much of the opposing viewpoint that you could possibly be wrong? Of course you didn't. biggrin
Posted By: Sobek

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 05/10/16 05:29 AM

Originally Posted By: LOF_Rugg
No one elses opinion is as important as yours?


No, but you get points for creativity. Still dragging this thread OT...
Posted By: Winfield

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 05/10/16 08:46 AM

Originally Posted By: Sobek
I've wasted enough of my time on these boards


damn, who else went and purchased balloons, streamers and party poppers in the hope this would be Sobek's last statement??

I know I did....

Only to return home and see.....Yep, many more irrational posts and wasting of the server hosts bandwidth
Posted By: Zoomie13

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 05/10/16 09:05 AM

Originally Posted By: Winfield
...Yep, many more irrational posts and wasting of the server hosts bandwidth

Wow. Were you looking in the mirror when you said this?.. rolleyes
Posted By: Winfield

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 05/11/16 12:50 AM

Originally Posted By: Zoomie13
Originally Posted By: Winfield
...Yep, many more irrational posts and wasting of the server hosts bandwidth

Wow. Were you looking in the mirror when you said this?.. rolleyes


your infatuation for me makes me blush every time you quote me, however I politely decline your advance, i'm married with a daughter.
Posted By: Sobek

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 05/11/16 07:11 PM

In for a penny...

Originally Posted By: Winfield

your infatuation for me makes me blush every time you quote me, however I politely decline your advance,


Kind of a noob move, choosing that line after chastising me for using it in the very same thread. smile
Posted By: Tom_Weiss

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 05/11/16 09:51 PM

Originally Posted By: Sobek
I've wasted enough of my time on these boards trying to offer a different point of vew to people that have their mind set. It is a fools errand really.



Posted By: Nate

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 05/12/16 01:03 AM

Am I doing it right ?



Nate
Posted By: Tom_Weiss

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 05/12/16 01:36 AM

you are clearly not doing it right.

please watch this

Posted By: Sobek

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 05/12/16 10:07 AM

... in for a pound.

Originally Posted By: Tom_Weiss
Originally Posted By: Sobek
I've wasted enough of my time on these boards trying to offer a different point of vew to people that have their mind set. It is a fools errand really.



Having a hard time to digest the massive amount of wisdom that is your post, Tom. If your intended message is that i'm contradicting myself, please note that the passage you quoted was with regards to the topic of Eagle Dynamics. I would never rid myself of the pleasure of conversing with such fine individuals as yourself and Winfield. wink
Posted By: Tom_Weiss

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 05/12/16 11:23 AM

Sobek - I am joking, these videos are meant as a joke.

lighten up.

But allow me to post a more digestible ... post, one redolent in meaning that appeals to you esthetic sense.



I am particularly happy with the metallic reflection I got on my skin.

have a nice day !

have fun in our forums. !

remember to visit LockOnFiles.com !

Happy Flying !

bye !
Posted By: Sobek

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 05/12/16 11:29 AM

Originally Posted By: Tom_Weiss

lighten up.


How many smileys does it take, Tom?

Is that sufficient for you? smile smile smile smile smile smile smile smile smile smile smile smile smile smile smile smile smile smile smile smile smile smile smile smile smile smile smile smile smile smile
Posted By: Tom_Weiss

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 05/12/16 11:35 AM

fantastic Sobek !!!

keep up the good work.

I will upload an F-15C request today, I hope you will like it.

have fun.
Posted By: Sobek

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 05/13/16 06:46 AM

This longing for my approval, it is flattering, sure, but also deeply disturbing...
Posted By: Tom_Weiss

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 05/13/16 05:18 PM

now that Winter is coming where I live, I long for sunny warm days ... but I digress.

any post of mine without a P3D screenshot is not complete



there, now it is complete.
Posted By: DrStrangePool

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 06/18/16 01:19 AM

After reading almost all pages as my before sleep reading time, I decided to post and give my somewhat 2 cents, or 3...

I have been playing Falcon BMS in March to April, and now EF2000 Reloaded, and even after playing DCS:World for a while I never got the feeling I get on Falcon and DiD EF2000 in its single player campaign. Sure I get it on the multiplayer in DCS, but I'm more of a single player myself. Although in multiplayer I have yet to find one that matches the old Il-2 series and the Novalogic F-16/MiG-29/F-22 series.

I wish DCS would take a page of Novalogic in the late 90's and early noughties(lol), and allow us a multiplayer like it, and especially allow us to choose which plane we want without several constraints placed by the mission maker. Yes, this comes after a few frustrations trying to fly the only NATO fast plane, the F-15c, with its slots being all full.

I miss that open ended of territorial conquest, after having only a restart when all objectives have been completed.


Time for me to go back to DiD EF2000, I'm itching to feel that "alive" campaign feel again. Even if the graphics look outdated, it is still great! I just had a dogfight with 4 Su-35's and I lost my wingman, but I managed to kill all 4 of them before more Russians arrived. In one such case, it seems either the missile took its time, or took a longer turn, or something else happened, but as soon as I was turning to use guns on the Su-35, it hit the plane... Seeing that blast and then the plume of smoke, while the Russian reinforcement started to lock on me was a sensation I never felt in DCS. I decided to check my stores and seeing I only had one missile left, I decided run for my life using the mountains of Sweden as cover. To finish it, I landed safely! --ish... Without rudder is a bit hard! Hahaha (I got it mapped on the other throttle lever on my Warthog, but it is still difficult to use and I instinctively use my feet)
Posted By: Tom_Weiss

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 06/18/16 01:45 AM

It is odd how memory works - it is almost 20 years since I flew EF2000 and a few years later F-22 and TAW, I still remember vividly some of the missions I flew, specially the dogfights.

DiD - Digital Image Design was one the greatest developers and its demise was for many of us, a very sad event.
Posted By: DrStrangePool

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 06/18/16 03:00 AM

Indeed! I would be so happy if ED could release a dynamic campaign for DCS, and aircraft at FC3 or CAP2/USAF/EF2000/TAW/Strike fighters level to build up the number of planes and increase the number of players/sales. If there was a particular interest in an aircraft, they could, then allow a 3rd party(Or ED themselves) to make a full A-10C level simulator out of it.

My fingers are itching for an F-4 in multiplayer!
Posted By: bkthunder

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 06/18/16 09:16 AM

I've been flying Falcon 4.0 in all its flavours since it came out in 1998. Still by far the best simulation, not only in terms of avionics and FM (DCS is on par here), but the sense of war, the feeling that things are going on around you, that your actions have consequences. It's totally immersive even in SP, while DCS feels like nothing more than en empty box, with totally dumb AI and no ground war. Let's face it, DCS has absolutely nothing in terms of AI, weapons and ATC. There has been no noticeable evolution in any of these areas since lock-on.

ED has a very very long way to go, to even scratch the surface of how deep Flaocn 4.0 is and was, even in 1998.
But again, they are so self-celebrating, I don't think any of the above will ever get a serious look at.
Posted By: Tom_Weiss

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 06/18/16 11:25 AM

Originally Posted By: DrStrangePool
Indeed! I would be so happy if ED could release a dynamic campaign for DCS, and aircraft at FC3 or CAP2/USAF/EF2000/TAW/Strike fighters level to build up the number of planes and increase the number of players/sales. If there was a particular interest in an aircraft, they could, then allow a 3rd party(Or ED themselves) to make a full A-10C level simulator out of it.

My fingers are itching for an F-4 in multiplayer!


I share your point of view

Originally Posted By: bkthunder
I've been flying Falcon 4.0 in all its flavours since it came out in 1998. Still by far the best simulation, not only in terms of avionics and FM (DCS is on par here), but the sense of war, the feeling that things are going on around you, that your actions have consequences. It's totally immersive even in SP, while DCS feels like nothing more than en empty box, with totally dumb AI and no ground war. Let's face it, DCS has absolutely nothing in terms of AI, weapons and ATC. There has been no noticeable evolution in any of these areas since lock-on.

ED has a very very long way to go, to even scratch the surface of how deep Flaocn 4.0 is and was, even in 1998.
But again, they are so self-celebrating, I don't think any of the above will ever get a serious look at.


you are 100% right.
Posted By: Stratos

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 06/18/16 11:35 AM

Originally Posted By: DrStrangePool
Indeed! I would be so happy if ED could release a dynamic campaign for DCS, and aircraft at FC3 or CAP2/USAF/EF2000/TAW/Strike fighters level to build up the number of planes and increase the number of players/sales. If there was a particular interest in an aircraft, they could, then allow a 3rd party(Or ED themselves) to make a full A-10C level simulator out of it.

My fingers are itching for an F-4 in multiplayer!


Can't agree more with you mate! FC3 level of aircraft will let the player fly more planes properly, will give more scenario availability and will make the game more diverse.

I think ED should make a serious poll as big as possible offering the users to choose what they want for future modules, hifi modules with 1 plane each 1-2 or sometimes 3 years, or FC3 level planes at one each 6 months.
Posted By: Johnny_Redd

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 06/18/16 03:15 PM

Originally Posted By: Stratos
Originally Posted By: DrStrangePool
Indeed! I would be so happy if ED could release a dynamic campaign for DCS, and aircraft at FC3 or CAP2/USAF/EF2000/TAW/Strike fighters level to build up the number of planes and increase the number of players/sales. If there was a particular interest in an aircraft, they could, then allow a 3rd party(Or ED themselves) to make a full A-10C level simulator out of it.

My fingers are itching for an F-4 in multiplayer!


Can't agree more with you mate! FC3 level of aircraft will let the player fly more planes properly, will give more scenario availability and will make the game more diverse.

I think ED should make a serious poll as big as possible offering the users to choose what they want for future modules, hifi modules with 1 plane each 1-2 or sometimes 3 years, or FC3 level planes at one each 6 months.

Last time ED did a poll a dynamic campaign came out on top. I don't think they really care what the customers want. I see no dynamic campaign and no mention of one from the devs.
Posted By: Daze

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 06/18/16 03:56 PM

Career mode please
Posted By: DrStrangePool

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 06/18/16 04:42 PM

Originally Posted By: bkthunder
I've been flying Falcon 4.0 in all its flavours since it came out in 1998. Still by far the best simulation, not only in terms of avionics and FM (DCS is on par here), but the sense of war, the feeling that things are going on around you, that your actions have consequences. It's totally immersive even in SP, while DCS feels like nothing more than en empty box, with totally dumb AI and no ground war. Let's face it, DCS has absolutely nothing in terms of AI, weapons and ATC. There has been no noticeable evolution in any of these areas since lock-on.

ED has a very very long way to go, to even scratch the surface of how deep Flaocn 4.0 is and was, even in 1998.
But again, they are so self-celebrating, I don't think any of the above will ever get a serious look at.


This reminds me of a flight I had, during night time in Korea in Falcon. Strange, how I have no cherishing or even worthy memories from DCS, even if I played some of their missions and campaign.

I was climbing, had the night vision off and watching the last few drops of sunlight disappear in the horizon when I noticed, just over the DMZ, flashes on the ground. I kept flying and looking at it and thinking "I'm so glad I'm not on the ground right now!".

Then, on another mission, in the afternoon, a flight was escorting me to my objective, which was to bomb a few buildings. One of my escorts got shot down, and ejected. I completed my mission, and while I was turning, I saw the other escort flying in circles around where his wingman got shot down. It kept circling there for a good while, and since I had fuel, and missiles I decided to join too. Eventually he had to return, and I kept in there for a little while longer, since I still had my drop tanks and enough fuel to return. But, after a while, I had to RTB. That's when, on my way back, I noticed a blackhawk flying right under me. If that helicopter was meant to recover the downed pilot, or for something else, I don't know, but it was an amazing experience.
Posted By: Paradaz

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 06/18/16 05:23 PM

Originally Posted By: "Johnny_Redd"

Last time ED did a poll a dynamic campaign came out on top. I don't think they really care what the customers want. I see no dynamic campaign and no mention of one from the devs.


If I recall correctly too, there hasn't been a single mention of progress in the last 4 'newsletters' either.....only sales patter and bundles.
Posted By: DrStrangePool

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 06/18/16 07:19 PM

Originally Posted By: Paradaz
Originally Posted By: "Johnny_Redd"

Last time ED did a poll a dynamic campaign came out on top. I don't think they really care what the customers want. I see no dynamic campaign and no mention of one from the devs.


If I recall correctly too, there hasn't been a single mention of progress in the last 4 'newsletters' either.....only sales patter and bundles.


I recall that poll, but since it happened I've never even heard a single peep in favour of it or any progress whatsoever about the dynamic campaign from ED. I think, it is safe to say that not even a single 0 or 1 has been written in favor of that.
Posted By: scrim

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 06/18/16 08:01 PM

Originally Posted By: DrStrangePool
Then, on another mission, in the afternoon, a flight was escorting me to my objective, which was to bomb a few buildings. One of my escorts got shot down, and ejected. I completed my mission, and while I was turning, I saw the other escort flying in circles around where his wingman got shot down. It kept circling there for a good while, and since I had fuel, and missiles I decided to join too. Eventually he had to return, and I kept in there for a little while longer, since I still had my drop tanks and enough fuel to return. But, after a while, I had to RTB. That's when, on my way back, I noticed a blackhawk flying right under me. If that helicopter was meant to recover the downed pilot, or for something else, I don't know, but it was an amazing experience.


Yup. If you want CSAR in DCS, it has to be the main focus of the mission, with loads and loads of efforts dedicated towards it. In BMS it just happens, it's a routine part of the campaign and can happen with any flight.
Posted By: Tom_Weiss

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 06/18/16 09:03 PM

I wonder how long it will take for 1.5 and 2.0 be integrated in one build, and when will we finally see the Spitfire released.
Posted By: Stratos

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 06/18/16 09:13 PM

I like DCS for the COIN warfare capability it have, the mission editor being so powerful. But for all warfare I think there are other options around.
Posted By: - Ice

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 06/18/16 10:16 PM

When I last played DCS, I was concentrating on making a mission that would generate AI flights once a player was at an airfield or when at a certain distance during RTB. The idea here was to give the game a little more atmosphere. Because of all the "loading times" that I had to endure, well, I didn't endure it for long.

The first few flights I had with my buddies in Falcon 4 BMS, we were on egress and panicked as 4 blips seemed to be coming right for us. Turned out it was a flight of 4 F-15s on RTB and one of the players exclaimed "you don't see that in DCS!" and he was right. Most of the time, for that to happen, we would have to script it in ourselves. This time, we did none of that so nobody really had a clue whether it was friendlies or bogeys. Just the thought of that, the thought of stuff happening around you that most of the time have nothing at all to do with your mission, gives a very strong immersion factor. You are part of a theatre that is ALIVE, that is has so many things going on.

DCS could simulate such a thing with it's quick mission editor, but fly outside the "bubble" and there's nothing.

A lot of people like DCS because it gives them lots of aircraft to fly in. Sure. Some people love driving cars and don't realize they are doing so in an empty parking lot.

Dynamic campaign? Yeah, that won in one of the polls. Good luck with that. It seems like ED is having a hard enough time just making aircraft and scenery.
Posted By: DrStrangePool

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 06/19/16 02:12 AM

Originally Posted By: - Ice
When I last played DCS, I was concentrating on making a mission that would generate AI flights once a player was at an airfield or when at a certain distance during RTB. The idea here was to give the game a little more atmosphere. Because of all the "loading times" that I had to endure, well, I didn't endure it for long.

The first few flights I had with my buddies in Falcon 4 BMS, we were on egress and panicked as 4 blips seemed to be coming right for us. Turned out it was a flight of 4 F-15s on RTB and one of the players exclaimed "you don't see that in DCS!" and he was right. Most of the time, for that to happen, we would have to script it in ourselves. This time, we did none of that so nobody really had a clue whether it was friendlies or bogeys. Just the thought of that, the thought of stuff happening around you that most of the time have nothing at all to do with your mission, gives a very strong immersion factor. You are part of a theatre that is ALIVE, that is has so many things going on.

DCS could simulate such a thing with it's quick mission editor, but fly outside the "bubble" and there's nothing.

A lot of people like DCS because it gives them lots of aircraft to fly in. Sure. Some people love driving cars and don't realize they are doing so in an empty parking lot.

Dynamic campaign? Yeah, that won in one of the polls. Good luck with that. It seems like ED is having a hard enough time just making aircraft and scenery.


One of the main impulses for me to hit my target or destroy a plane is that, if I fail, I will cause someone on my side, be it a soldier or a pilot to die. So, I constantly think to myself "If I fail, this plane will go and bomb an airfield killing hundreds of friends! I better get this guy or people will die!". Or when I'm doing a CAS, and they are shooting at someone from NATO, I think "I have to kill that now, and make it stop shooting!". Sometimes , when I have left over missile or bombs on my plane I go target of opportunity hunting with the idea that, if I thin them enough, there will be less casualties.

I don't do any of that on DCS, if I fail to deliver something, I just restart, if for some reason someone on my side die, and wasn't scripted to recognize it, nothing will happen. If I go hunting for targets of opportunity, it will make no difference. If I go outside the bubble, as you mentioned, there is nothing... it is all so...lifeless!

That was a flight I had a few minutes ago, it was a magnificent failure! We got pounced by more than 6 Su-33's, we took a few of them out, but in the end, we couldn't stop them. I was the last pilot, took two down with guns, but I missed one, and that one shot me down with a missile and then with guns. Didn't even reach my target. My two wild weasel F-16 that were following me got shot down as well. It was...a disaster! And, this was completely out of the blue! It wasn't scripted, it was all by chance and choices made by the campaign.

It's tough when a 1995/1998 simulator beats DCS in immersion factor!
Posted By: Tom_Weiss

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 06/19/16 11:57 AM

that was always DiD strength - immersion, gameplay and an overall sense of fun.

nowadays - I get the most fun out of this



but in that screenshot, you have 4 developers dedicated to providing the most fun and immersion possible.
Posted By: Remon

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 06/19/16 12:23 PM

Originally Posted By: Tom_Weiss
but in that screenshot, you have 4 developers dedicated to providing the most fun and immersion possible.


You almost caused me physical damage there, the way my eyes rolled.
Posted By: Tom_Weiss

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 06/19/16 12:38 PM

wink

I remember back in the days of LO and FC1.1 how much effort I put in mission making, spent a tremendous amount of flying time testing them, always having to watch the FPS I got as the margin was so narrow.
Posted By: Stratos

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 06/19/16 03:55 PM

The version I enjoyed the most was Flanker 2.51, for me was the perfect balance between realism and mission options.
Posted By: - Ice

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 06/19/16 07:15 PM

Excellent post and right on target DrStrangePool!

Another aspect of Falcon is that you know that even if you can "respawn," each airframe you lose is one less airframe for your squadron. If you don't take down those enemy fighters, they may well go behind your FLOT and wreck havoc on allied assets. Even if you save the campaign and in the back of your head, you're thinking "I can just reload anyway," that next flight won't exactly play out like the first one.
Posted By: HomeFries

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 06/19/16 08:47 PM

Originally Posted By: DrStrangePool


I recognize that game! biggrin
Originally Posted By: DrStrangePool

It's tough when a 1995/1998 simulator beats DCS in immersion factor!

To be fair, the ground war is abstracted in both EF2000 and TAW. EF2000 (WARGEN1) abstracted it with airfield control based on turn and probability, and TAW (WARGEN2) had ground units planned, but then had them taken out because Atari rushed TAW to market. Falcon 4.0 (and to a lesser extent EECH) are the only flight sims that represent a ground war, and Falcon 4.0 can only due this because of the bubble system it uses. Also, Falcon 4.0's development effectively bankrupted Microprose, so I have a feeling that its campaign engine is a one-time-only deal.

ED has stated that they will not introduce a bubble system, as this goes against the philosophy of the military customers (which is to have the instructor/scenario designer have control over everything). I could see something like this happening with today's hardware as long as we had the following:
  • A dedicated server (with dedicated server software) that controls the entire battlefield
  • a ground bubble specifically for air clients, and an air bubble specifically for ground clients
  • Tasking specific to the client would always be part of their bubble (e.g. going to provide CAS to a unit currently outside the client's bubble)
  • Bubble size would be determined by the server, with possibly dynamic bubbles based on the number of clients

The bubbles would only apply to un-like units, e.g. the bubble for air units would only apply to seeing ground units and vice versa. Long range SAMs would need to be an exception, as the bubble would need to be at least 1.5 times their radar range (to allow for RWR hits).

This way ED could have their cake and eat it too. The server would keep track of everything, and since it has no requirement to render it could use the entire CPU to manage the battle as well as the information distribution. Clients would receive only the updates they need, which would keep internet traffic down, allow the CPU to deal with the client actions, and yet still not be unfairly surprised by threats since like platforms would be exceptions to the bubble. Of course, this would require some serious work in netcode, and it is a non-starter until at least the DCS 2.5+ dedicated server is released.
Posted By: Tom_Weiss

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 06/19/16 08:56 PM

to me, the high point was the Su-25T in FC1.1, in FC2 they made it too easy to fly and I lost interest.
Posted By: DrStrangePool

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 06/20/16 12:12 AM

Originally Posted By: HomeFries
Originally Posted By: DrStrangePool


I recognize that game! biggrin
Originally Posted By: DrStrangePool

It's tough when a 1995/1998 simulator beats DCS in immersion factor!

To be fair, the ground war is abstracted in both EF2000 and TAW. EF2000 (WARGEN1) abstracted it with airfield control based on turn and probability, and TAW (WARGEN2) had ground units planned, but then had them taken out because Atari rushed TAW to market. Falcon 4.0 (and to a lesser extent EECH) are the only flight sims that represent a ground war, and Falcon 4.0 can only due this because of the bubble system it uses. Also, Falcon 4.0's development effectively bankrupted Microprose, so I have a feeling that its campaign engine is a one-time-only deal.

ED has stated that they will not introduce a bubble system, as this goes against the philosophy of the military customers (which is to have the instructor/scenario designer have control over everything). I could see something like this happening with today's hardware as long as we had the following:
  • A dedicated server (with dedicated server software) that controls the entire battlefield
  • a ground bubble specifically for air clients, and an air bubble specifically for ground clients
  • Tasking specific to the client would always be part of their bubble (e.g. going to provide CAS to a unit currently outside the client's bubble)
  • Bubble size would be determined by the server, with possibly dynamic bubbles based on the number of clients

The bubbles would only apply to un-like units, e.g. the bubble for air units would only apply to seeing ground units and vice versa. Long range SAMs would need to be an exception, as the bubble would need to be at least 1.5 times their radar range (to allow for RWR hits).

This way ED could have their cake and eat it too. The server would keep track of everything, and since it has no requirement to render it could use the entire CPU to manage the battle as well as the information distribution. Clients would receive only the updates they need, which would keep internet traffic down, allow the CPU to deal with the client actions, and yet still not be unfairly surprised by threats since like platforms would be exceptions to the bubble. Of course, this would require some serious work in netcode, and it is a non-starter until at least the DCS 2.5+ dedicated server is released.


I love what you guys have done for EF2000 and TAW. Thank you so very, very, very, very much!! I love it so much that I spent a few days trying to troubleshoot or find a way for me to move the position of my joysticks at the game controller window. Sadly, I failed there, but found a workaround that I will share on combatsim forum. It may help someone else running the same problem as I am.

My main concern regarding DCS is that they should at least attempt to create this bubble for the civilian market, as in, us users. I'm sure that it will pay off in sales afterwards. Create a sort of system that runs in parallel with the current mission builder, when the user selects the dynamic campaign it runs that part of the code instead. When the user selects "user made or designed missions/campaign" it runs its current campaign engine/mission editor.

At least it would make a good, sizable chunk of the users happy.

Edit: I would be happy with a TAW/EF2000 or Strike Fighters dynamic campaign. Which would be a huge evolution to what we have now wink




Posted By: Stratos

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 06/20/16 08:42 AM

Originally Posted By: DrStrangePool
Edit: I would be happy with a TAW/EF2000 or Strike Fighters dynamic campaign. Which would be a huge evolution to what we have now wink


Amen to that!
Posted By: bkthunder

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 06/20/16 12:35 PM

I think the lack of a dynamic campaign, AI etc. is down to pure lack of coding skills / willingness from the side of ED.

Think about the evolution since the Flanker series. Lock on came out and it was a huge step forward in terms of graphics, but not much in terms of anything else.
FC and DCS are still based on the same old Flanker. I'm not talking about flight dynamics, modules etc. I'm saying that all of these great modules are just add ons to a game from years ago, and that core code has not evolved. Pretty much the same can be said for BMS.

What changed since the original Flanker?
- Graphics
- AFM
- Advanced systems and avionics

What changed since Falcon 4.0?
- Graphics
- AFM
- Advanced systems and avionics (only for the F-16)

So I'd say they have been equally slow in development.

The difference is in the base product:

- Falcon 4.0 had the dynamic campaign and decent AI since the very beginning. BMS has these things today and capitalised on these tremendously.
- Flanker had none of those things, DCS has none of these things today.

The way I see it, ED has to start cooking something new, instead of adding water to the old soup.
Posted By: Jedi Master

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 06/20/16 02:05 PM

Originally Posted By: HomeFries

ED has stated that they will not introduce a bubble system, as this goes against the philosophy of the military customers (which is to have the instructor/scenario designer have control over everything).


And this is why ED's business model is flawed as far as commercial customers are concerned...we're getting the scraps, we're not the focus, and they can't change that unless they separate out two branches entirely. I don't think they're getting the sales to warrant that investment in resources and manpower, although it could be argued they might get those sales if they did...

As has been pointed out here and elsewhere numerous times before, a military simulator and an entertainment simulator can be represented as a Venn diagram of two overlapping circles. Where they meet is the aspects common to both, but on either side you have features/requirements that are of no use or are directly detrimental to the other.

If we make the assumption that they are prioritizing the military customers, then the only solution that can make the entertainment side have what it needs is to separate them and stop unified development. I don't see that happening now, all these years after the split with Ubi, unless they partnered with a publisher again.



The Jedi Master
Posted By: HomeFries

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 06/20/16 02:10 PM

Originally Posted By: DrStrangePool

Edit: I would be happy with a TAW/EF2000 or Strike Fighters dynamic campaign. Which would be a huge evolution to what we have now wink

I can't argue with that. The SF2 campaign (really, dynamic mission designer, but it works for me) was fun, but something like that just screamed multiplayer. At least DCS has the multiplayer capability, so a SF2 type campaign would be a great start. Nice thing about the SF2 campaign is that it is very easy to modify, so we would have a lot of campaigns available in DCS if this ever happened.

There are quite a few things that SF2 did that DCS should implement, including the decal system (tiered and based on an ini file, not the 3DSMax object, so you could place dynamic decals anywhhere), the dynamic mission designer, and the campaign system where the same campaign could be flown by different aircraft, different sides, etc. for a completely different experience.

Maybe ED should hire TK on a contract basis if he's not to busy with Android apps. winkngrin
Posted By: brownba

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 06/20/16 03:35 PM

And maybe he could build us a Phantom while he's at it!
Posted By: PFunk

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 06/20/16 04:27 PM

Originally Posted By: Stratos
The version I enjoyed the most was Flanker 2.51, for me was the perfect balance between realism and mission options.


+1. Best version of the sim.
Posted By: - Ice

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 06/20/16 09:18 PM

Originally Posted By: bkthunder
I'm saying that all of these great modules are just add ons to a game from years ago, and that core code has not evolved. Pretty much the same can be said for BMS.

<snip!>

So I'd say they have been equally slow in development.


It is not fair to compare DCS with BMS. One is being developed by its own set of programmers/coders with access to the source code and can change and modify as they see fit. Another is being developed by programmers/coders who do so in their spare time, with no pay, and working with a 14+ year old code and some things cannot change due to being hard-coded in the source. Therefore, changing "graphics" in one sim isn't the same as changing the "graphics" in the other sim, nor is the time and focus available equally to both parties.
Posted By: DrStrangePool

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 06/20/16 11:44 PM

Originally Posted By: HomeFries
Originally Posted By: DrStrangePool

Edit: I would be happy with a TAW/EF2000 or Strike Fighters dynamic campaign. Which would be a huge evolution to what we have now wink

I can't argue with that. The SF2 campaign (really, dynamic mission designer, but it works for me) was fun, but something like that just screamed multiplayer. At least DCS has the multiplayer capability, so a SF2 type campaign would be a great start. Nice thing about the SF2 campaign is that it is very easy to modify, so we would have a lot of campaigns available in DCS if this ever happened.

There are quite a few things that SF2 did that DCS should implement, including the decal system (tiered and based on an ini file, not the 3DSMax object, so you could place dynamic decals anywhhere), the dynamic mission designer, and the campaign system where the same campaign could be flown by different aircraft, different sides, etc. for a completely different experience.

Maybe ED should hire TK on a contract basis if he's not to busy with Android apps. winkngrin


I couldn't agree more with what you said!

Now that you mention the decal implementation, it makes me miss the old Il-2 days where we could make some custom skin and people in the server would download and see them or even decals.
Posted By: HomeFries

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 06/21/16 02:31 AM

Originally Posted By: DrStrangePool

Now that you mention the decal implementation, it makes me miss the old Il-2 days where we could make some custom skin and people in the server would download and see them or even decals.

With 50-80Mb skins, that's not going to happen. However, if ED added decals to their flyable 3D objects and allowed the decal files to be downloaded (these are usually less than 1Mb), then we could at least see personalized aircraft within the default liveries.

I posted some things on the ED forums along this line, along with a CONOPS for a tiered decal system. Only reply I ever received on the decal post was TLDR. attack
Posted By: DrStrangePool

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 06/21/16 06:02 PM

Originally Posted By: HomeFries
Originally Posted By: DrStrangePool

Now that you mention the decal implementation, it makes me miss the old Il-2 days where we could make some custom skin and people in the server would download and see them or even decals.

With 50-80Mb skins, that's not going to happen. However, if ED added decals to their flyable 3D objects and allowed the decal files to be downloaded (these are usually less than 1Mb), then we could at least see personalized aircraft within the default liveries.

I posted some things on the ED forums along this line, along with a CONOPS for a tiered decal system. Only reply I ever received on the decal post was TLDR. attack


Hahahaha, true! I forgot that detail! But who knows, maybe in a decade, with faster internet we can. hahahahaha We can dream!

But your description regarding decals, I'm 100% in! That would be a great thing if they implemented it. We would have cake for everyone! As you so eloquently described in ED's forum post... hahaha
Posted By: Exorcet

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 06/24/16 04:17 PM

Originally Posted By: DrStrangePool
Originally Posted By: bkthunder
I've been flying Falcon 4.0 in all its flavours since it came out in 1998. Still by far the best simulation, not only in terms of avionics and FM (DCS is on par here), but the sense of war, the feeling that things are going on around you, that your actions have consequences. It's totally immersive even in SP, while DCS feels like nothing more than en empty box, with totally dumb AI and no ground war. Let's face it, DCS has absolutely nothing in terms of AI, weapons and ATC. There has been no noticeable evolution in any of these areas since lock-on.

ED has a very very long way to go, to even scratch the surface of how deep Flaocn 4.0 is and was, even in 1998.
But again, they are so self-celebrating, I don't think any of the above will ever get a serious look at.


This reminds me of a flight I had, during night time in Korea in Falcon. Strange, how I have no cherishing or even worthy memories from DCS, even if I played some of their missions and campaign.

I was climbing, had the night vision off and watching the last few drops of sunlight disappear in the horizon when I noticed, just over the DMZ, flashes on the ground. I kept flying and looking at it and thinking "I'm so glad I'm not on the ground right now!".

Then, on another mission, in the afternoon, a flight was escorting me to my objective, which was to bomb a few buildings. One of my escorts got shot down, and ejected. I completed my mission, and while I was turning, I saw the other escort flying in circles around where his wingman got shot down. It kept circling there for a good while, and since I had fuel, and missiles I decided to join too. Eventually he had to return, and I kept in there for a little while longer, since I still had my drop tanks and enough fuel to return. But, after a while, I had to RTB. That's when, on my way back, I noticed a blackhawk flying right under me. If that helicopter was meant to recover the downed pilot, or for something else, I don't know, but it was an amazing experience.



I never got into Falcon as much as I did FC and DCS, it just happened to be the one I missed (appeared when I was just getting into flight sims and also did not have much in the way of PC hardware). I also was never hooked on to the DC. When I finally did get Falcon, I did the same thing I do in DCS. Mission Editing. Even from this perspective, Falcon is quite strong. No doubt it does somethings better than DCS, and this is the basic 4.0 AF I'm talking about, which is the only version I own.

However, I don't think DCS gets enough credit at times. I can't say that you're wrong in not having any memorable DCS experiences, it is after all your experience. Yet the kind of thing you described above isn't beyond DCS. I try to evolve my mission making ability as time goes on, though my "golden era" was the FC2 days. I put out what I consider to be some really good missions back then when I was on the sim regularly. One of the standouts for me was a F-15 escort mission near a large city. I had placed significant ground forces around the city hoping to make the ground below a little more lively. It worked out far better than I expected, the city constantly deteriorated over the coarse of the mission. At first only a few points of fire and smoke were visible, but when the air battle was over and I was heading back to base, I could see that a big portion of the city was on fire. That was for me, truly an immerse and memorable experience.

The issue is, this kind of thing takes work to set up in DCS. In Falcon, you can let the game set it up for you. For those who don't want to spend time creating content, I see the issue. The ideal for DCS would probably be to have more content creators. It just hasn't happened though.
Posted By: Paradaz

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 06/24/16 04:27 PM

Oh there's a shock.....so the latest newsletter mentions a F-86F/MIG-15bis 3rd party campaign in the works, together with an update of the 1.5 branch - and then shifting focus back to DCS 2.0.

It's very clear where the priorities are. How's about sorting the mess that is 2.5 out from the split branches?
Posted By: nirvi

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 06/24/16 04:38 PM

The F86/Mig15 campaign was announced over 2 months ago.
Posted By: Paradaz

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 06/24/16 07:53 PM

It may well have been however I don't visit the ED 'forums'. The newsletters have had no progress updates within the last month whatsoever.
Posted By: mister_mystic68

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 06/24/16 07:59 PM

Originally Posted By: Paradaz
Oh there's a shock.....so the latest newsletter mentions a F-86F/MIG-15bis 3rd party campaign in the works, together with an update of the 1.5 branch - and then shifting focus back to DCS 2.0.

It's very clear where the priorities are. How's about sorting the mess that is 2.5 out from the split branches?


Yeah it's sad that every week for the past month it's been about sales and now another campaign. It does seem to be the focus lately and I grow tired of it and to not even mention anything about the merge to create 2.5 on top of it has me very disappointed in ED. One can only hope that one day another developer comes on the scene and shakes the mentality of ED.
Posted By: Force10

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 06/24/16 08:59 PM

Originally Posted By: mister_mystic68
One can only hope that one day another developer comes on the scene and shakes the mentality of ED.


Not likely. I think part of the problem is that ED has private contracts and that's how we end up with some of these decisions. Nevada? L-39?

If they had a poll years ago on what new theater folks would want to see in DCS, Nevada would rank at the very bottom of the charts...if it registered at all.

The only way things might get better is if ED has no more private contracts and has to rely solely on their public offerings. Then their attitude towards their customers and decisions might change a bit.

IMO of course.
Posted By: mister_mystic68

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 06/24/16 09:22 PM

Originally Posted By: Force10
Originally Posted By: mister_mystic68
One can only hope that one day another developer comes on the scene and shakes the mentality of ED.


Not likely. I think part of the problem is that ED has private contracts and that's how we end up with some of these decisions. Nevada? L-39?

If they had a poll years ago on what new theater folks would want to see in DCS, Nevada would rank at the very bottom of the charts...if it registered at all.

The only way things might get better is if ED has no more private contracts and has to rely solely on their public offerings. Then their attitude towards their customers and decisions might change a bit.

IMO of course.


I can agree with that possibility also. I hope for some sort of shakeup to prompt a better focus and better communication to the customers on the entertainment side. I really don't think the latter is too much to ask of them.
Posted By: Tom_Weiss

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 06/24/16 11:15 PM

to anyone that has been around since Lock On Modern Air Combat, what is happening (the delays, bugs, choices of models) is nothing new.
Posted By: - Ice

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 06/24/16 11:34 PM

Originally Posted By: Exorcet
I never got into Falcon as much as I did FC and DCS, it just happened to be the one I missed (appeared when I was just getting into flight sims and also did not have much in the way of PC hardware). I also was never hooked on to the DC. When I finally did get Falcon, I did the same thing I do in DCS. Mission Editing. Even from this perspective, Falcon is quite strong. No doubt it does somethings better than DCS, and this is the basic 4.0 AF I'm talking about, which is the only version I own.

However, I don't think DCS gets enough credit at times. I can't say that you're wrong in not having any memorable DCS experiences, it is after all your experience. Yet the kind of thing you described above isn't beyond DCS. I try to evolve my mission making ability as time goes on, though my "golden era" was the FC2 days. I put out what I consider to be some really good missions back then when I was on the sim regularly. One of the standouts for me was a F-15 escort mission near a large city. I had placed significant ground forces around the city hoping to make the ground below a little more lively. It worked out far better than I expected, the city constantly deteriorated over the coarse of the mission. At first only a few points of fire and smoke were visible, but when the air battle was over and I was heading back to base, I could see that a big portion of the city was on fire. That was for me, truly an immerse and memorable experience.

The issue is, this kind of thing takes work to set up in DCS. In Falcon, you can let the game set it up for you. For those who don't want to spend time creating content, I see the issue. The ideal for DCS would probably be to have more content creators. It just hasn't happened though.


To be fair, DCS has done something right. However, it is not those that is under discussion but rather how it carried itself AFTER the things it got right. Unfortunately, the things it didn't get right is plain and plenty to see.

Again, you are correct. For a mission creator, DCS can be fun. Putting scripts in, putting some RNG, testing the missions, all of that can be fun if that's your cup of tea. Personally, I could not fly the missions I created because I already "knew the story" and it was like watching a movie while I already know the ending. Or endings. I guess I'm a flight simmer more than a content creator.
Posted By: Nate

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 06/25/16 02:38 AM

Originally Posted By: Force10

The only way things might get better is if ED has no more private contracts and has to rely solely on their public offerings. Then their attitude towards their customers and decisions might change a bit.

IMO of course.


That's an interesting proposition, the question would be if that would be viable to run the business. Perhaps if Boeing (or similar) got involved ala Lockheed/P3d, we might see a shift in priorities/resource availability?

Nate
Posted By: Tom_Weiss

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 06/25/16 10:47 AM

Originally Posted By: Nate
Originally Posted By: Force10

The only way things might get better is if ED has no more private contracts and has to rely solely on their public offerings. Then their attitude towards their customers and decisions might change a bit.

IMO of course.


That's an interesting proposition, the question would be if that would be viable to run the business. Perhaps if Boeing (or similar) got involved ala Lockheed/P3d, we might see a shift in priorities/resource availability?

Nate


I don't think that Boeing or any other major aircraft manufacturer is needed, all that is needed is a shift in priorities, which, as we all know, will never happen.
Posted By: Nate

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 06/25/16 01:19 PM

Originally Posted By: Tom_Weiss
Originally Posted By: Nate
Originally Posted By: Force10

The only way things might get better is if ED has no more private contracts and has to rely solely on their public offerings. Then their attitude towards their customers and decisions might change a bit.

IMO of course.


That's an interesting proposition, the question would be if that would be viable to run the business. Perhaps if Boeing (or similar) got involved ala Lockheed/P3d, we might see a shift in priorities/resource availability?

Nate


I don't think that Boeing or any other major aircraft manufacturer is needed, all that is needed is a shift in priorities, which, as we all know, will never happen.


I honestly don't believe that'd be viable business wise.

Nate
Posted By: Tom_Weiss

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 06/25/16 01:40 PM

DCS is what it is and will remain what it is in the foreseeable future.
Posted By: Exorcet

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 06/25/16 01:51 PM

Originally Posted By: - Ice
Personally, I could not fly the missions I created because I already "knew the story" and it was like watching a movie while I already know the ending. Or endings.


Yes, that became a problem for me at some point. My way around was to create a massive library and trying to build in such a way that all I could know for sure would be the kind of thing you would expect in a briefing. Example, you'd know that enemy fighters would try to intercept you, so I'd put something like 10 different enemy flights, give them random groupings with different triggers to simulate different tactics, and put them at different airfields with different timings. Very time intensive though.




Originally Posted By: Troll
I guess what I'm saying is that my perfect sim has a scripted career campaign, with dynamic elements. I want the missions that mattered, not the ones spent on station in a racetrack pattern, waiting for something to happen...

Does that make sense to anyone? smile


I've come to the conclusion that this is what I'd prefer as well. DC isn't a deal breaker for me. I personally prefer the control offered in DCS mission building. Campaign wise, my biggest wish is essentially a better way to manage mission selection. I need a way to keep missions from repeating, and I don't want failures to prevent progress. You don't get to retry in real life.
Posted By: - Ice

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 06/25/16 06:33 PM

Originally Posted By: Troll
Ah! The advantage of old age, Ice... I can create a mission and forget my options even before I'm finished with it..! wink

I have been thinking, and reminiscing, about the whole scripted vs. dynamic campaign thing.
I do believe I prefer a scripted campaign, but with replayability options and open endings. Because a true dynamic campaign can be boring. Realistically boring, perhaps, but non the less. A good mission and campaign designer can create missions and campaigns with diversity, that keep me entertained.
However, one thing I do miss is resource management. That has always appealed to me. Simulating leading a squadron. Pairing pilots, assigning airframes and keeping track of supplies and resupplies.

I guess what I'm saying is that my perfect sim has a scripted career campaign, with dynamic elements. I want the missions that mattered, not the ones spent on station in a racetrack pattern, waiting for something to happen...

Does that make sense to anyone? smile


Oh, don't get me wrong, I see the point of scripted missions. They are great for testing tactics and stuff --- you can do things differently and see how your new tactic has affected the outcome. It is very good for training. However, I guess I've progressed past that stage and I relish the "unknown" element that is inherent in Falcon's DC.

As for "missions that mattered," yeah, that's one of the shortcomings of the Falcon DC. It can make silly missions at the start and as you start winning the game, you may very well end up with CAP flights with nothing happening. Not really a bad thing -- it just means there's not much enemy air power anymore and really, it's YOUR fault for being so awesome! biggrin I'd rather deal with the DC's smaller flaws and be able to fly a mission rather than having to make one on ED's mission creator.


Originally Posted By: Exorcet
Yes, that became a problem for me at some point. My way around was to create a massive library and trying to build in such a way that all I could know for sure would be the kind of thing you would expect in a briefing. Example, you'd know that enemy fighters would try to intercept you, so I'd put something like 10 different enemy flights, give them random groupings with different triggers to simulate different tactics, and put them at different airfields with different timings. Very time intensive though.


True, and I hate it when the RNG gods turn evil and then I end up with a super-massive force that I cannot fight against. Also quite a pain to test. I don't have that time nor patience.
Posted By: bkthunder

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 06/25/16 07:55 PM

Originally Posted By: - Ice
Originally Posted By: bkthunder
I'm saying that all of these great modules are just add ons to a game from years ago, and that core code has not evolved. Pretty much the same can be said for BMS.

<snip!>

So I'd say they have been equally slow in development.


It is not fair to compare DCS with BMS. One is being developed by its own set of programmers/coders with access to the source code and can change and modify as they see fit. Another is being developed by programmers/coders who do so in their spare time, with no pay, and working with a 14+ year old code and some things cannot change due to being hard-coded in the source. Therefore, changing "graphics" in one sim isn't the same as changing the "graphics" in the other sim, nor is the time and focus available equally to both parties.


Ice, you took these sentences out of context. Basically I agree with you.

The bottom line of my post was/is: ED has access to the code and can modify it at will, but they haven't done anything remarkable with it, basically only eye candy and modules on the same old code.
BMS have done a tremendous job on something they can't modify. Luckily, that base code was visionary, and it's still the best war simulator.
So ED are lazy/lacking skills.
Posted By: - Ice

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 06/25/16 08:51 PM

Originally Posted By: bkthunder
Ice, you took these sentences out of context. Basically I agree with you.

The bottom line of my post was/is: ED has access to the code and can modify it at will, but they haven't done anything remarkable with it, basically only eye candy and modules on the same old code.
BMS have done a tremendous job on something they can't modify. Luckily, that base code was visionary, and it's still the best war simulator.
So ED are lazy/lacking skills.


I cannot say anything about the coding as I cannot access it nor would I understand it. I can only form opinions and judge the work based on the end result and how it plays and the experience it gives.

Is DCSW2.0 going to be a significant change in code? Or is it still just "old code" but made to play with newer tech/software (ie, DirectX11/12)?

How exactly did BMS make "old code" do "new tricks"? How exactly are they adding new aircraft which I presume would need "new code"?

Doesn't this show that "new" or "old" code isn't really the issue but rather how active and willing the devs/programmers are at pushing the boundaries?
Posted By: HomeFries

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 06/25/16 09:06 PM

I admit I was disheartened when I saw that they were "going back to 2.0" after a 1.5.4 beta release, especially because doing things on diverging code brances is a vicious cycle. However, if you take a look at the beta there are a lot of updates from 1.5.3. Things like you don't normally see, such as more than just a few keyboard/joystick lua files and it also appears that just about every campaign mission (including DLC) has been updated. This likely means that they have completed (or almost completed) the AI/ME tweaks and they are paying attention to the things we have already paid for. It also appears that they are applying the 2.0 enhancements to the 1.5 series, which is doing more to integrate the code branches than diverge them.

After seeing the content in the beta, I feel a little better. I'm not expecting a 2.5 release in early July, but at least I saw quite a bit of progress.
Posted By: bkthunder

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 06/25/16 10:12 PM

Originally Posted By: - Ice

Is DCSW2.0 going to be a significant change in code? Or is it still just "old code" but made to play with newer tech/software (ie, DirectX11/12)?


IMO it will at large be the old code. They said they are doing a new ATC system, *if* that ever comes to fruition, it could represent something new, and maybe better AI.
Originally Posted By: - Ice

How exactly did BMS make "old code" do "new tricks"? How exactly are they adding new aircraft which I presume would need "new code"?

The avionics are always those of the F-16, and IIRC that's one of the things that are "hardcoded" from the original Falcon 4.0.
Originally Posted By: - Ice

Doesn't this show that "new" or "old" code isn't really the issue but rather how active and willing the devs/programmers are at pushing the boundaries?

Definitely.
Posted By: - Ice

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 06/25/16 10:50 PM

Originally Posted By: bkthunder
The avionics are always those of the F-16, and IIRC that's one of the things that are "hardcoded" from the original Falcon 4.0.

Sure, but what about the other aircraft's FM? Or being able to display 4 MFDs instead of just 2? Won't that be "new code"?
Posted By: cichlidfan

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 06/25/16 11:15 PM

There is an upside to having three versions. When they break one of them, the other two still work, and they can also be used as a source of working files to fix the broken one. smile
Posted By: nadal

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 06/25/16 11:58 PM

Originally Posted By: - Ice
Originally Posted By: bkthunder
The avionics are always those of the F-16, and IIRC that's one of the things that are "hardcoded" from the original Falcon 4.0.

Sure, but what about the other aircraft's FM? Or being able to display 4 MFDs instead of just 2? Won't that be "new code"?


Which aircraft allows to display more than 2 mfds in bms4.33..?
Posted By: - Ice

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 06/26/16 12:51 AM

Sorry, not yet, I guess, but I have high hopes for the 3rd "MFD" in the Hornet! biggrin Doesn't that have more functionality than just a HSI? It's been decades since I've flown Jane's F/A-18.
Posted By: Remon

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 06/26/16 05:55 AM

Originally Posted By: bkthunder
Ice, you took these sentences out of context. Basically I agree with you.

The bottom line of my post was/is: ED has access to the code and can modify it at will, but they haven't done anything remarkable with it, basically only eye candy and modules on the same old code.
BMS have done a tremendous job on something they can't modify. Luckily, that base code was visionary, and it's still the best war simulator.
So ED are lazy/lacking skills.


"Only eye candy". rofl.

Yes, BMS has done the truly hard work, like the Dynamic Campaign...
Posted By: mrskortch

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 06/26/16 06:58 AM

Originally Posted By: Remon
Yes, BMS has done the truly hard work, like the Dynamic Campaign...


BMS didn't create the dynamic campaign. Kevin Klemmick and the Microprose team that developed Falcon 4 made the DC. Now thats not to downplay anything the Benchmark Sims team did to it, I honestly have no idea how the DC has evolved over the years, but I think its disingenuous to attribute it solely to the BMS team. Even if most know what you are talking about, theres still plenty of new players around who don't know the history behind Falcon 4 and its iterations.
Posted By: bkthunder

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 06/26/16 07:33 AM

Originally Posted By: Remon
Originally Posted By: bkthunder
Ice, you took these sentences out of context. Basically I agree with you.

The bottom line of my post was/is: ED has access to the code and can modify it at will, but they haven't done anything remarkable with it, basically only eye candy and modules on the same old code.
BMS have done a tremendous job on something they can't modify. Luckily, that base code was visionary, and it's still the best war simulator.
So ED are lazy/lacking skills.


"Only eye candy". rofl.

Yes, BMS has done the truly hard work, like the Dynamic Campaign...


Lol, Remon, if you spent a nanosecond reading (and understanding) my post, you would see that I never said that BMS developed the DC engine, on the contrary, this was done by Microprose.

What BMS did is a pretty long list of amazing things, within a code that they don't own and is inaccessible in some parts.
What ED did is an equally long list of things, which unfortunately for me and you, doesn't include fundamental stuff such as:

- AI
- Efficient rendering of objects on a large scale scenario
- Dynamic Campaign

Those are all things that, given ED is the owner of the code, should be within reach if they had the plans/motivation/skills to do it.

Really it is sad that the commercial (paid-for) work of a company whose main business are flight simulators, can be compared (and in many aspects pales) to the achievements of a group of spare time modders that work for free on a 18 years old code they don't own...

But hey, "everything is subject to change" no? Let's stay optimistic :P
Posted By: Remon

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 06/26/16 07:48 AM

Originally Posted By: mrskortch
Originally Posted By: Remon
Yes, BMS has done the truly hard work, like the Dynamic Campaign...


BMS didn't create the dynamic campaign. Kevin Klemmick and the Microprose team that developed Falcon 4 made the DC. Now thats not to downplay anything the Benchmark Sims team did to it, I honestly have no idea how the DC has evolved over the years, but I think its disingenuous to attribute it solely to the BMS team. Even if most know what you are talking about, theres still plenty of new players around who don't know the history behind Falcon 4 and its iterations.


Don't worry, I knew that, it was sarcasm.


Originally Posted By: bkthunder
Lol, Remon, if you spent a nanosecond reading (and understanding) my post, you would see that I never said that BMS developed the DC engine, on the contrary, this was done by Microprose.

What BMS did is a pretty long list of amazing things, within a code that they don't own and is inaccessible in some parts.
What ED did is an equally long list of things, which unfortunately for me and you, doesn't include fundamental stuff such as:

- AI
- Efficient rendering of objects on a large scale scenario
- Dynamic Campaign

Those are all things that, given ED is the owner of the code, should be within reach if they had the plans/motivation/skills to do it.

Really it is sad that the commercial (paid-for) work of a company whose main business are flight simulators, can be compared (and in many aspects pales) to the achievements of a group of spare time modders that work for free on a 18 years old code they don't own...

But hey, "everything is subject to change" no? Let's stay optimistic :P


And you, of course, proceed to list stuff that neither the BMS group has coded.
Posted By: bkthunder

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 06/26/16 10:39 AM

Originally Posted By: Remon
Originally Posted By: mrskortch
Originally Posted By: Remon
Yes, BMS has done the truly hard work, like the Dynamic Campaign...


BMS didn't create the dynamic campaign. Kevin Klemmick and the Microprose team that developed Falcon 4 made the DC. Now thats not to downplay anything the Benchmark Sims team did to it, I honestly have no idea how the DC has evolved over the years, but I think its disingenuous to attribute it solely to the BMS team. Even if most know what you are talking about, theres still plenty of new players around who don't know the history behind Falcon 4 and its iterations.


Don't worry, I knew that, it was sarcasm.


Originally Posted By: bkthunder
Lol, Remon, if you spent a nanosecond reading (and understanding) my post, you would see that I never said that BMS developed the DC engine, on the contrary, this was done by Microprose.

What BMS did is a pretty long list of amazing things, within a code that they don't own and is inaccessible in some parts.
What ED did is an equally long list of things, which unfortunately for me and you, doesn't include fundamental stuff such as:

- AI
- Efficient rendering of objects on a large scale scenario
- Dynamic Campaign

Those are all things that, given ED is the owner of the code, should be within reach if they had the plans/motivation/skills to do it.

Really it is sad that the commercial (paid-for) work of a company whose main business are flight simulators, can be compared (and in many aspects pales) to the achievements of a group of spare time modders that work for free on a 18 years old code they don't own...

But hey, "everything is subject to change" no? Let's stay optimistic :P


And you, of course, proceed to list stuff that neither the BMS group has coded.


Again, please read before you write...
As I have said, BMS didn't code the DC, AI, ATC etc (although they modify and improved a lot). As I wrote before (reading would again be beneficial when quoting someone...), BMS didn't have to code these things because Microprose did it.

So BMS didn't code the DC etc. Why? No access to the original code / already coded by Microprose = No need to code it.

ED didn't code the DC etc. Why? They have access to the original code (they own it), so why is it that almost 20 years later they still haven't developed things that Falcon 4.0 had in 1998? Maybe you can answer?
Posted By: Remon

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 06/26/16 01:02 PM

Because they don't want to, yet? Maybe because changing from dx9 to dx11, and everything that comes with it, is a much more difficult task than making a 3d cockpit*? Most of the engines that change APIs don't take to the transition too well, especially with smaller companies (Arma 3, almost non existent dx11 benefits, and Il-2 CloD, dx10 implementation was really buggy and almost no one uses it, come to mind in the sim world), the exact opposite of what happened with DCS.

* Not trying to say that BMS hasn't done some amazing work, they have.
Posted By: Art_J

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 06/26/16 05:51 PM

Many good companies developed great sims and features in the past, when cost-vs-benefit was not an absolutely primary factor. These days are long gone though and won't come back.

Apart from sim-flying, I do a lot of sim-racing. Still play heavily modded Grand Prix Legends from 1998 - an excellent and unorthodox sim for that time, but a commercial failure, thus never succeeded by anything in the same spirit; GTR2 from 2006 - the best endurance racing sim ever was, but also not a commercial bomb, and again never succeeded by anything remotely similar. Never played Geoff Crammond's GP4 from 2002, but I know it is still considered a benchmark of how moder F1 sim should be made, and yet, feature-wise, today's F1 offerings by Electronic Arts don't even come close to it (while we know EA doesn't suffer from shortage of funds and workforce, does it?)

I stopped wondering why modern sim-racing developers don't put some obvious gameplay features in modern titles, even when technically they could. They just don't bother, as the number of anoraks who appreciate these features will not provide sufficient revenue.

Same applies to flight sims. If the Falcon 4 devs were to build their sim in 2016, I don't really think they would develop Dynamic Campaign engine for it either.

If ED ever develops something similar to DC, or provides options for the community to do so, I'll be happy. Not holding my breath for it though.
Posted By: cdelucia

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 06/26/16 06:46 PM

Sure we know why there's no DC - was stated earlier in this thread: ED's main source of revenue is the private contract/military market. Why did we get a hi-fi A-10C module from them? Because they wanted to give the commercial market [us] what it wants? Of course not - they wanted to make a little more off of something they'd already made for the Air National Guard.

Likewise, the private contract/military market have no need of a DC. The only thing they really care for are cockpit and flight dynamics familiarization. The only reason we have a FAC module is so the ANG could step its pilots through working with one in the updated A-10C cockpit.

There's really no mystery here, the commercial market plays second fiddle to their main customers. We get the long delayed left-over fruits of their labors from the private contract/military market. I just wish ED would admit as much.

And yes, today F4 would have any even smaller market with which to appeal to recoup its enormous development costs. Just how things turned out; opium-of-the-masses FPS like DOTA and whatnot reap the biggest revenues, so they get the best programmers/companies. Hi-fi modern combat flight sims on the other hand are very niche. That's all there is to it.

Personally, I'm not buying anything until the F-18C is finalized. Until then I'll get back to fixing the settings that 1.5.4 messed up with my TrackIR, and praying they fix SLI someday.
Posted By: scrim

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 06/26/16 07:00 PM

Where have people gotten that twisted idea from? If they were mainly making simulators for military customers, how come there's only 1 single plane from this side year 2000? Why is there not a single map of a war zone any of these imagined customers operate in? Why are ED developing Soviet trainers and WW2 planes? And why, exactly why would mil customers be asking for an F/A-18C module? The biggest military customer there is is currently in the progress of replacing their legacy Hornets.

People have found exactly one single website where ED is trying to get into the mil market, mostly advertising stuff they don't even have finished yet. Sorry, but there is no "we're not the main market, that's why they're treating commercial customers like trash" excuse. The commercial market has always been their main focus, and it still is.
Posted By: Force10

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 06/26/16 07:40 PM

Originally Posted By: scrim
Where have people gotten that twisted idea from? If they were mainly making simulators for military customers, how come there's only 1 single plane from this side year 2000? Why is there not a single map of a war zone any of these imagined customers operate in? Why are ED developing Soviet trainers and WW2 planes? And why, exactly why would mil customers be asking for an F/A-18C module? The biggest military customer there is is currently in the progress of replacing their legacy Hornets.

People have found exactly one single website where ED is trying to get into the mil market, mostly advertising stuff they don't even have finished yet. Sorry, but there is no "we're not the main market, that's why they're treating commercial customers like trash" excuse. The commercial market has always been their main focus, and it still is.


So did I imagine the military simulator that was running Nevada about 3 years ago? You can't count the 3rd party stuff (WWII etc.) as we're talking about ED and their priorities. The A-10, Nevada and the L-39 are all from private contracts I believe. What other DCS level items have ED created other than the Blackshark and those 3?

Here's Jim Mackonochie talking about their military contracts:

Posted By: Art_J

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 06/26/16 08:25 PM

@ Cdelucia - re. TrackIR f-up - If You have another install, 1.5.3 stable or 2.0, copy the default.lua file from TrackIR folder and put it in OB 1.5.4. That will get Your TiR back to as it was.

If You don't, here's the edited one, to be turned on via JSGME:
http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=2822725&postcount=134
Posted By: - Ice

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 06/26/16 10:25 PM

The discussion is not just DC and who created it and when. I think you're missing the point though -- BMS has done well with a code they had to "reverse engineer" in order to add new stuff and this makes ED look like they're sat twiddling their thumbs.

How much work do you think was done in order to add new aircraft into BMS? "But -Ice, those are just re-skinned F-16s!" Sure, the F-16 can hover, I forgot about that. And the undercarriage is strong enough to do carrier traps, I'm sure they didn't have to mod that. I'm positive that the Harrier, Hornet, and Viper have the same flight characteristics too.

What about adding new theatres? Or adding high-res ground textures? What about incorporating TrackIR support (was TIR present in 1998?/99? ) and a full 6DoF, fully-clickable pit with working gauges?

What is DCS missing that BMS has? How about being able to control your wingman or talk to the tower "normally"? "Two, RTB!" "Kunsan tower, Viper 1 requesting emergency landing." "Texaco, Ghost flight requesting rejoin." Has DCS changed it's comms menu yet? Instead of talking normally, I was limited to saying the "number" of the option I wanted. Remember, they have control of their code, they can change into a BMS-like comms menu if they wanted to.

"But -Ice, ED can do all that if they want to, but their priorities are elsewhere at the moment!" Really? How big was the outcry for DCS World 2 and Nevada terrain on the EDGE engine when they started the project? What would make them shift their priorities from modern-ish aircraft to WWII aircraft to Korean/Vietnam era aircraft? What would make them shift eras without even fleshing out a previous era?

How important is the shift to DirectX 11/12? Will ED collapse if it kept whatever engine it had before? How in the world does BMS survive if DirectX implementation was that important?
Posted By: Remon

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 06/27/16 12:25 AM

Originally Posted By: - Ice
The discussion is not just DC and who created it and when. I think you're missing the point though -- BMS has done well with a code they had to "reverse engineer" in order to add new stuff and this makes ED look like they're sat twiddling their thumbs.

How much work do you think was done in order to add new aircraft into BMS? "But -Ice, those are just re-skinned F-16s!" Sure, the F-16 can hover, I forgot about that. And the undercarriage is strong enough to do carrier traps, I'm sure they didn't have to mod that. I'm positive that the Harrier, Hornet, and Viper have the same flight characteristics too.

What about adding new theatres? Or adding high-res ground textures? What about incorporating TrackIR support (was TIR present in 1998?/99? ) and a full 6DoF, fully-clickable pit with working gauges?


AF and Freefalcon had 3d pits and tir support. New theaters aren't a BMS thing. It doesn't have to do with code either.

Quote:
What is DCS missing that BMS has? How about being able to control your wingman or talk to the tower "normally"? "Two, RTB!" "Kunsan tower, Viper 1 requesting emergency landing." "Texaco, Ghost flight requesting rejoin." Has DCS changed it's comms menu yet? Instead of talking normally, I was limited to saying the "number" of the option I wanted. Remember, they have control of their code, they can change into a BMS-like comms menu if they wanted to.


I must admit, I haven't flown BMS for a while and I don't understand what you mean. I remember pressing T for the ATC menu, and then you had to press 1-5 for different options? And yes, DCS doesn't have a very good comms system. Also, I don't get what you mean with "normally".

Quote:
"But -Ice, ED can do all that if they want to, but their priorities are elsewhere at the moment!" Really? How big was the outcry for DCS World 2 and Nevada terrain on the EDGE engine when they started the project? What would make them shift their priorities from modern-ish aircraft to WWII aircraft to Korean/Vietnam era aircraft? What would make them shift eras without even fleshing out a previous era?


What outcry?

Quote:
How important is the shift to DirectX 11/12? Will ED collapse if it kept whatever engine it had before? How in the world does BMS survive if DirectX implementation was that important?


It survives by being old and free. And dx11/12 support is pretty huge. Unless you want your maps to look like flat images of cities painted on a couple of polygons.
Posted By: cdelucia

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 06/27/16 12:26 AM

Art_J, thanks for the info - helped get things squared away.

/Rant mode on

As for the entertainment market (as Jim Mackonochie referred to it in the vid above) not being their main stay, well, interviews like the one posted above seem to point in that direction; but then there's also the complete lack of urgency with which they treat the entertainment market (again, we simmers). Hadn't thought about it, but I suppose they could just suck - I'd prefer to believe they've had other irons in the fire though (more trainers!).

What more can be said? ED's the only show in town for the modern jet combat sim and I'm sick of it. Not much I can do about that though. Except post here from time to time. Maybe I'll pick up the Mirage once that's actually finalized. Oh, and they get SLI working with EDGE. Shouldn't be too much to ask but then again they've ignored specific issues with it thus far.

/Rant mode off
Posted By: scrim

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 06/27/16 12:44 AM

Originally Posted By: Force10
So did I imagine the military simulator that was running Nevada about 3 years ago? You can't count the 3rd party stuff (WWII etc.) as we're talking about ED and their priorities. The A-10, Nevada and the L-39 are all from private contracts I believe. What other DCS level items have ED created other than the Blackshark and those 3?

Here's Jim Mackonochie talking about their military contracts:



Well, that's an extremely dated film. It's from way before there even was a DCS World to talk off. Now, how much more have they churned out for the mil market since that was recorded? There's been some mentioning of BST's Mi-8 maybe being used as a sim for what, the Afghan air force? And then there's the "Battle Space" website, that's advertising mainly vaporware, the A-10C, and the Legacy Hornet that only the USMC is currently using, and is getting rid off soon.
Posted By: Force10

Re: Campaign after Campaign - ED's new focus - 06/27/16 01:16 AM

You're gonna have to help me out here on your point Scrim.

At the time of that video...Blackshark was already under developement...and yes...that seems to be a consumer level only module. After Blackshark and the video...there have been 3 major releases from ED:

A-10C
Nevada
L-39

These 3 releases seemed to be based on military/private projects ported over to consumers. What am I missing? What other DCS level module has been released with just the consumer in mind? I suppose you could make a case for the Edge engine...but it seems to be an engine that allows them to port their private contracts into more than anything else. I'm talking about ED only...3rd party devs for ED aren't what were talking about.
Posted By: - Ice

Re: Campaign after Campaign - ED's new focus - 06/27/16 11:15 AM

Originally Posted By: Remon
AF and Freefalcon had 3d pits and tir support. New theaters aren't a BMS thing. It doesn't have to do with code either.

No experience with FF, but yes, AF had a 3D pit. I can't remember if MFDs were working in it, but only some gauges were and even then, I learned not to trust those that "worked." That's why I flew with RPM counter on the HUD. I also had a switch on my Cougar to toggle between 2D pit for pit work and 3D pit for SA. That was quite an immersion breaker when you compare to a fully-working 3D pit.

"New theatres aren't a BMS thing"??? Sure it isn't. But that's not what I'm saying. I said that in support to the claim about the work BMS devs have done on a very old sim compared to DCS devs on code they control. Heck, if it's not even a code thing, why do we have only two maps in DCS but so many planes? Why is the "new work" on the Black Sea map limited to re-skinning the textures? Because ED won't release the tools to make new maps? If we follow this train of thought, we just go down the rabbit hole of "ED doesn't know what it's doing."

Originally Posted By: Remon
I must admit, I haven't flown BMS for a while and I don't understand what you mean. I remember pressing T for the ATC menu, and then you had to press 1-5 for different options? And yes, DCS doesn't have a very good comms system. Also, I don't get what you mean with "normally".


Because of the consistent way of how the Falcon comms menu is structured, you know that if you press Y-1, that is "Tanker rejoin." Y-2 is "Tanker ready refuel." That is always, always the case. DCS comms menu (if they've not changed it) was dependent on your last transmission. Pressing 1 would be different depending if you were talking to tower previously or if you were talking to your wingman.

With this, it is much more fun and immersive using voice commands in BMS. You can make it simple and say "Tanker, request refuel" and the voice command program (VAC, Shoot, Voice Attack, LMC, etc.) will "send" Y-1 to the sim. You can also make it more "professional" and increase the immersion factor by saying "Texaco, Ghost flight requesting rejoin." Either way, it's way, way, WAY better than saying "Y-1" or even having to press Y-1 on the keyboard. So by "normally," I meant what a pilot would normally do inside an aircraft -- which is to SAY a phrase. With DCS's comms menu system, it's next-to-impossible to do this.

Hope that clears it up smile

Originally Posted By: Remon
What outcry?

Er, substitute "outcry" for "demand" and it'll make sense.

Originally Posted By: Remon
It survives by being old and free. And dx11/12 support is pretty huge. Unless you want your maps to look like flat images of cities painted on a couple of polygons.

Oh, yes. I have FSX, DCS A-10C, DCS BS2, FC2, FC3, I have access to Nevada (A10C Beta backer), I have EECH, Jane's F/A-18, and so on, but the reason I play BMS is because it is "old and free." Haha! Nope!

You know what the surprising thing was? I thought this "ugly terrain textures on a flat map" would bother me, especially since I thought everything above Angels 5 was "too high" in the Warthog. Heck, even the 3D cockpit of the Viper is quite "old-looking" and the shadows are definitely grainy! However, once I'm at Angels 20-30 and having my head on a swivel watching out for that SAM launch or pulling 9Gs and trying to keep cornerspeed at Angels 1 as I try to come 'round in a knife fight.... what textures? biggrin
Posted By: - Ice

Re: Campaign after Campaign - ED's new focus - 06/27/16 11:21 AM

Originally Posted By: cdelucia
What more can be said? ED's the only show in town for the modern jet combat sim and I'm sick of it.


I keep getting confused about this statement. What exactly is barring people from flying BMS? The £6.99 Falcon Collection requirement? But that's just new for 4.33.1. 4.32 and 4.33.0 didn't need that. And what's £6.99 compared to how much other forms of entertainment costs nowadays? That even went down to around £1.50 during the sale, and I'm pretty sure you can even get it for cheaper! wink

If all you're asking for is a modern jet, isn't the F-16C/J Block 52 a modern jet? If you want a combat sim, well, the DC in Falcon will fill your need easily and is a totally different experience compared to ED's scripted-mission system.
Posted By: scrim

Re: Campaign after Campaign - ED's new focus - 06/27/16 11:46 AM

Originally Posted By: Force10
These 3 releases seemed to be based on military/private projects ported over to consumers. What am I missing? What other DCS level module has been released with just the consumer in mind? I suppose you could make a case for the Edge engine...but it seems to be an engine that allows them to port their private contracts into more than anything else. I'm talking about ED only...3rd party devs for ED aren't what were talking about.


Nevada isn't a mil project, neither is the L-39. They've also made the P-51, and have now taken it upon themselves to do the WW2 project. And again, if they're after mil contracts, why are they developing the F/A-18C? The USMC isn't gonna buy that, they're not planning to have their Legacy Hornets for more than a few years. Only Finland and Switzerland comes to mind flying them, and they're such small customers that they're unlikely to be willing to spend money on a new simulator.
Posted By: - Ice

Re: Campaign after Campaign - ED's new focus - 06/27/16 11:48 AM

Originally Posted By: Troll
That's true enough... Graphics alone does not make a great sim.

A sim needs immersion.

Good graphics is just one way of creating a suspension of disbelief that immerse the player in a sim. But great graphics and bad framerates are bad for immersion. Flight modeling. Systems modeling. Intuitive controls. You name it! Creating the "feeling of being there" is a tough job for sim developers! It also comes down to your own imagination.
But, like Ice says, ground textures doesn't matter, if there's other stuff keeping you busy and focused.

F4 and its iterations sure have loads of immersion! That's for sure.


Holy sh!t!! Who are you and what have you done with the REAL Troll??!??!?
behindcouch
Posted By: Johnny_Redd

Re: Campaign after Campaign - ED's new focus - 06/27/16 11:51 AM

Originally Posted By: Troll
From http://www.thebattlesim.com/about/ we learn that TBS is based on DCS

Quote:

TBS is based on the commercial entertainment software product "Digital Combat Simulator World" (DCS World).


And that they have at least 2 or 3 military contracts.

Quote:
TFC and ED has been the developer of Desk Top Trainer (DTT) simulations for the United States military. Completed projects include:

A-10C DTT. Conversion trainer and procedural trainer for the A-10C PE program. Developed for Suite 5.1, this DTT has been deployed to all active duty, reserve, and ANG A-10C squadrons.
AC-130U DTT. Sensor and weapon operator procedures trainer for the USAF.
UAV Operator Station. Sensor suite developed for the A-10C PE DTT has also been used at Randolph AFB for UAV sensor operators training.

Both projects were delivered on time and on budget.


I guess the last line gave a few people in here a good chuckle ;-)

"New theaters in development: Syria, Crimea, and Afghanistan" Hmmmmm. Now we know why the black sea map is taking so long to modernize and the integration to 2.5 is way over due.
We called it.
Posted By: scrim

Re: Campaign after Campaign - ED's new focus - 06/27/16 01:59 PM

I don't know, they've always been slow. If any work at all has been done on either of those 3 theaters, I think it's very little, and that they're hoping to bag some lucrative mil contracts that would allow them to hire more manpower to actually put real effort into it. They've never said anything to the DCS community about either of those maps, despite A, having a proven track record of telling the community anything, no matter how far off it is, and B, there's no reason for why those maps would be exclusive to any mil customer and unavailable to the DCS customers.

I mean, if you want mil contracts, it probably looks bad if you can only advertise half the Black Sea region, the NTTR, Normandy and the Straits of Hormuz as available/upcoming terrains.
Posted By: Force10

Re: Campaign after Campaign - ED's new focus - 06/27/16 03:06 PM

Originally Posted By: scrim


Nevada isn't a mil project


What? We saw video of it up and running in a professional grade simulator years before it was released to us. The P-51 wasn't meant to be a consumer release. It was a pet project one of the programmers was doing just "for fun". It was only after they saw how nice it turned out they decided to release it. This explains why they would release a prop with no adversary and ill fitting in the rest of the DCS world.

WWII was obviously not ED's idea...it was Luthier/RRG...and now it's been pretty stagnate.

Your statement about Nevada not being a private contract is enough for me to not continue this discussion. It seems your just shooting from the hip at this point. If you want to believe ED's made all these decisions with you the consumer in mind...knock yourself out.
Posted By: SkateZilla

Re: Campaign after Campaign - ED's new focus - 06/27/16 03:48 PM

Nevada was a 3rd party project that fell apart, and was rebooted by ED, and then put on hold while a new graphics engine was developed to facilitate the larger object counts,

it was never a "Military" Project.

as stated before, whether or not professional simulator companies licensed early versions of edge and maybe nevada for their use is completely another story, as they would be able to license an early engine, and complete it themselves (ie Avia TS etc).


The P-51 was Developed by E.D. for private use by The Fighter Collection, it was later released as a retail product.
Posted By: Force10

Re: Campaign after Campaign - ED's new focus - 06/27/16 04:07 PM

I guess I used the word "military" in one of my responses...but as I said in my original post:

Originally Posted By: Force10

I think part of the problem is that ED has private contracts and that's how we end up with some of these decisions.


Nevada was used for a private contract before we received it...correct? I know I saw a video of it up and running in a pro-grade simulator
a couple years ago.
Posted By: Tom_Weiss

Re: Campaign after Campaign - ED's new focus - 06/27/16 04:33 PM

I remember having bought a Spitfire, a P-47D and a WWII map a while ago...

I wonder if I will get it before 2020.
Posted By: Remon

Re: Campaign after Campaign - ED's new focus - 06/27/16 06:59 PM

Using yourself as an example means nothing. I could give my self as an example and that would lead to nowhere. Why do you count more than me?
Posted By: Jedi Master

Re: Campaign after Campaign - ED's new focus - 06/27/16 07:06 PM

If you're like me, and I know I am...



The Jedi Master
Posted By: - Ice

Re: Campaign after Campaign - ED's new focus - 06/27/16 07:20 PM

Originally Posted By: Remon
Using yourself as an example means nothing. I could give my self as an example and that would lead to nowhere. Why do you count more than me?


So BMS survives because it's old and free and the reasons I have put forward are not valid because they are my reasons? Wow. Maybe I've never been to the BMS forums? Maybe I've never seen/read/talked about how other people fly and why they like BMS? Yes, of course, my reply was based solely on myself; I have no knowledge nor insight from anyone except myself.

So let's try that again.

1. 6DoF pits and TIR support - AF doesn't hold a candle to BMS implementation of this.
2. Theatres - BMS has at least 3 theatres. If "new theatres" aren't a thing, why does DCS only have Black Sea and Nevada?
3. DirectX - if that's really, REALLY important, how is BMS surviving on old DirectX? Why is DCS so bad even with new DirectX? Maybe, just maybe, I dunno, DirectX implementation might not be a factor in how some simmers enjoy their games?
Posted By: RatioFire

Re: Campaign after Campaign - ED's new focus - 06/27/16 08:21 PM

Originally Posted By: Tom_Weiss
I remember having bought a Spitfire, a P-47D and a WWII map a while ago...

I wonder if I will get it before 2020.


Don`t get me wrong, but I bnever understood that project. There are so many good and modern ww2 scenario based softwares out there. Why not focusing on something we are really missing. A modern fighter simulation with tons of different modules.

Imagine what could have been developped with the money...
Posted By: Tom_Weiss

Re: Campaign after Campaign - ED's new focus - 06/27/16 08:54 PM

my money ... that is why I would like to see it released.
Posted By: Force10

Re: Campaign after Campaign - ED's new focus - 06/27/16 09:19 PM

Originally Posted By: Tom_Weiss
my money ... that is why I would like to see it released.


I feel for ya Tom.

Maybe ED should include some paperwork with the WWII stuff so purchasers can list "next of kin" in case they expire from old age while waiting for their purchase to be released. At least your kids could enjoy it. wink
Posted By: Johnny_Redd

Re: Campaign after Campaign - ED's new focus - 06/27/16 10:08 PM

Originally Posted By: Force10
Originally Posted By: Tom_Weiss
my money ... that is why I would like to see it released.


I feel for ya Tom.

Maybe ED should include some paperwork with the WWII stuff so purchasers can list "next of kin" in case they expire from old age while waiting for their purchase to be released. At least your kids could enjoy it. wink

LMAO. It's hilarious because it's true.
Why were RRG removed from that project? Stacking side by side RRGs and EDs work done on the project. RRG produced more in the one year they were managing the project than ED have produced in the two years they have been managing the project. All I've seen from ED is the finalization of the 109 started by RRG. Oh and some spitfire screenshots. It seems the only thing that's been accomplished in the last year was putting a pilot in the spitfire. Pathetic really. Should have just cancelled it and refunded everybody. Or subcontracted to someone who actually gave a $hit about the customers.
Posted By: Tom_Weiss

Re: Campaign after Campaign - ED's new focus - 06/27/16 10:53 PM

as I wrote - at the rate they are going, we will see them releasing it piecemeal by 2200, I mean, 3030 ooops, 2020.
Posted By: bkthunder

Re: Campaign after Campaign - ED's new focus - 06/28/16 09:19 AM

Originally Posted By: - Ice
[quote=Remon][quote=- Ice]
Wow. You're so unable to follow a line of discussion I realize now it's moot to debate you. I thought that was a one-off with another forum member here but apparently it isn't.


/ OT mode on /

Ice, have you ever seen anyone on the ED forums who is able to follow a line of discussion?

- Sure, when you're posting how amazing DCS is, and how ED does a great job. In this case anything is admitted, even posting memes and going totally OT is allowed, and welcome.

- When you post a nasty bug, well, you either get moved to the "wishlist" section, or totally ignored into oblivion.

- It then becomes totally impossible for the ED fanboy to follow any discussion if you dare criticise anything done by ED.


I always find amusing how fanboyism works.

Over at the ED forums in a way you get used to it, everything is of the same "color", because anyone with a different opinion is efficiently banned, dangerous heretics and anarchists are immediately dealt with. I have a laugh every time I read a thread, every 3 posts there's a username with that little red cross next to it (meaning banned). Of course you can never tell why he was banned, because the offending posts are removed in a matter of seconds.

Here on the other hand, fanboys spark a very stark contrast with people that can actually enjoy different sims and debate freely on the strengths and weaknesses of each one, and god forbid, even go as far as comparing DCS with BMS!

You know what? I enjoy DCS. What bothers me is what DCS could be but will not be, unless ED got their act together a little more. There is one thing I learnt very quickly in my job, and is the base of pretty much every commercial activity on the planet: listen to your customers and look at what the competition is doing. ED don't do enough of this. They instead opted to cultivate a sort of sect of followers, while shunning everyone else.

And this is why DCS will never be able to take the role that Falcon 4.0 / BMS always had in the combat sim community.
The Falcon community, with all of its drama, has always been a place where you could feel the need and want for progress. More realism, more options, more of everything. No argument is taboo.

The DCS community on the other hand, is generating bitterness, fanboyism and censorship. It's self-limiting. You can't express your opinions freely because there are people at every corner ready to discredit your post or derail the thread. You can't suggest or want something that ED doesn't approve.
You can't freely discuss the fidelity of A-A missiles, because you're exposing a weakness in DCS and ED will not acknowledge the problem.

Blocking discussion = blocking ideas = blocking progress.

/ OT mode off /
Posted By: Tom_Weiss

Re: Campaign after Campaign - ED's new focus - 06/28/16 10:42 AM

excellent post bkthunder smile
Posted By: Battlerabbit

Re: Campaign after Campaign - ED's new focus - 06/28/16 12:10 PM

+1 bkthunder
Posted By: Tom_Weiss

Re: Campaign after Campaign - ED's new focus - 06/28/16 12:38 PM

Originally Posted By: Troll
Originally Posted By: Tom_Weiss
excellent post bkthunder smile


You bkthunder fanboi you! biggrin


wink

it is our shared experience smile
Posted By: leaf_on_the_wind

Re: Campaign after Campaign - ED's new focus - 06/28/16 12:46 PM

+1
bkthunder

A great post showing the backward and often retarded way ED and its moderators deal with people
Posted By: xXNightEagleXx

Re: Campaign after Campaign - ED's new focus - 06/28/16 01:45 PM

DC or not DC? problem is that without dc it really seems that you are playing a video game. Not only due to the fact that it is not dynamic like a war, but also because you have this mini campaign with, let's say, 12 missions then the designer must decide between either forcing you to repeat the same mission over and over again because something has screwed up (either your or ai fault, or even system fault) or let you to proceed anyway making the campaign feel extremely short as side effect.
Let's not forget things like creating unrealistic and stupid missions (eg. forcing a a10 to do SEAD missions) just to bump the challenge (aka game) feeling (which is not directly related to dc but rather to these new campaign packs).

Regards
NE
Posted By: Remon

Re: Campaign after Campaign - ED's new focus - 06/28/16 01:59 PM

Originally Posted By: xXNightEagleXx
Let's not forget things like creating unrealistic and stupid missions (eg. forcing a a10 to do SEAD missions) just to bump the challenge (aka game) feeling (which is not directly related to dc but rather to these new campaign packs).


That has more to do with the lack of multirole aircraft. Besides, a badly programmed DC can have the same problems.
Posted By: xXNightEagleXx

Re: Campaign after Campaign - ED's new focus - 06/28/16 02:05 PM

Originally Posted By: Remon
Besides, a badly programmed DC can have the same problems.


sure sure, no doubt.
Posted By: Tom_Weiss

Re: Campaign after Campaign - ED's new focus - 06/28/16 02:54 PM

Originally Posted By: Force10
Originally Posted By: Tom_Weiss
my money ... that is why I would like to see it released.


I feel for ya Tom.

Maybe ED should include some paperwork with the WWII stuff so purchasers can list "next of kin" in case they expire from old age while waiting for their purchase to be released. At least your kids could enjoy it. wink


biggrin

what I find odd is that other than some info about the Spitfire we have absolutely no idea if and when the rest will be released, this add on should by now have been released with all the aircraft etc.

a wait period of 4-5 years after an announcement is not something that they seem to worry about.
Posted By: - Ice

Re: Campaign after Campaign - ED's new focus - 06/28/16 04:10 PM

Looking at the ED website, I just realized how a lot of their offerings are 3rd party modules from AvioDev, VEAO, Belsimtek, etc. Can someone confirm what EXACTLY is ED working on right now?

> DCS 2.0/1.5x
> DCS WWII (Bf 109, Dora)
> DCS L-39

Is that it?
Posted By: cichlidfan

Re: Campaign after Campaign - ED's new focus - 06/28/16 04:28 PM

You forgot the Nevada map, Normandy map, SoH map and the F-18C.
Posted By: GrayGhost

Re: Campaign after Campaign - ED's new focus - 06/28/16 05:49 PM

Originally Posted By: - Ice
Looking at the ED website, I just realized how a lot of their offerings are 3rd party modules from AvioDev, VEAO, Belsimtek, etc. Can someone confirm what EXACTLY is ED working on right now?

> DCS 2.0/1.5x
> DCS WWII (Bf 109, Dora)
> DCS L-39

Is that it?


F-18
Engine Enhancements (generically the 2.0/1.5 stuff, but it's really a lot of things together: missile code, scripting capabilities, adding UI elements like the controls configuration dialogue etc)
Posted By: nirvi

Re: Campaign after Campaign - ED's new focus - 06/28/16 06:00 PM

Originally Posted By: GrayGhost
Originally Posted By: - Ice
Looking at the ED website, I just realized how a lot of their offerings are 3rd party modules from AvioDev, VEAO, Belsimtek, etc. Can someone confirm what EXACTLY is ED working on right now?

> DCS 2.0/1.5x
> DCS WWII (Bf 109, Dora)
> DCS L-39

Is that it?


F-18
Engine Enhancements (generically the 2.0/1.5 stuff, but it's really a lot of things together: missile code, scripting capabilities, adding UI elements like the controls configuration dialogue etc)


Plus at least (what we know of) the Spitfire, P-47, Garmin GPS, Strait of Hormuz and the new carrier modules
Posted By: Paradaz

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 06/28/16 06:30 PM

Originally Posted By: Force10
Two of the DLC campaigns are now broken with the 1.5.4 release...those are linear and they are having problems


Well, we certainly saw this coming....yet more work that ED is responsible for now that they are putting so much effort into pushing payware campaigns to generate extra funds!

Originally Posted By: Paradaz: 16th March 2016 in reply to a message from 'Clutch'

On a serious note I can see you're not disputing the additional work I mention though....because isn't it true that whatever involvement ED have for the campaigns (from themselves and 3rd parties) that are part of the 1.5 or 2.0 dev branch will ALL have to be repeated in terms of testing/recompiling/QA (if it exists) and further bug-fixing, to ensure compatibility with a new 2.5 branch - and the more campaigns that exist, the more this work is magnified!

This is another example where ED would never have planned for, simply because they probably didn't foresee taking external campaigns from years back or more recently and incorporating them into current builds. We all know that ED haven't got a good track-record (in fact none whatsoever) in getting anything out on time to their own scheduled timeline. There is no possible way that these campaigns can help their cause but there is every possibility that it may hinder.
Posted By: - Ice

Re: Campaign after Campaign - ED's new focus - 06/28/16 06:30 PM

Originally Posted By: cichlidfan
You forgot the Nevada map, Normandy map, SoH map and the F-18C.


Originally Posted By: GrayGhost
F-18
Engine Enhancements (generically the 2.0/1.5 stuff, but it's really a lot of things together: missile code, scripting capabilities, adding UI elements like the controls configuration dialogue etc)


Originally Posted By: nirvi
Plus at least (what we know of) the Spitfire, P-47, Garmin GPS, Strait of Hormuz and the new carrier modules


Thanks!! Yeah, quite a lot then. Didn't somebody say roughly how many full-time staff ED has to spread around? biggrin
Posted By: - Ice

Re: Campaign after Campaign - ED's new focus - 06/28/16 06:32 PM

Originally Posted By: Paradaz
Well, we certainly saw this coming....yet more work that ED is responsible for now that they are putting so much effort into pushing payware campaigns to generate extra funds!


We did?!?!!? Surely nobody here called this? How can it be possible that this event can be foreseen?? neaner
Posted By: cichlidfan

Re: Campaign after Campaign - ED's new focus - 06/28/16 07:17 PM

I like my pizza cut into squares! wink
Posted By: Force10

Re: Campaign after Campaign - ED's new focus - 06/28/16 09:47 PM

That's enough...you guys are just going in circles now. I'm going to temp-lock the thread for now and let things cool down for a bit. If you insist on continuing this line of round-a-bout...I'll lock the thread permanent.


Posted By: Force10

Re: Campaign after Campaign - ED's new focus - 06/29/16 04:30 PM

Thread re-opened:

I did some clean up and would like to not have the same issue re-hashed all over again.

It should go without saying that this is a discussion forum and users statements are their own opinion. It doesn't need to be stated over and over again that it's just their opinion.

Posted By: LOF_Rugg

Re: Campaign after Campaign - ED's new focus - 06/29/16 05:41 PM

Originally Posted By: Force10
It doesn't need to be stated over and over again that it's just their opinion.


That's YOUR opinion.........

Sorry, you left it open. biggrin
Posted By: Force10

Re: Campaign after Campaign - ED's new focus - 06/29/16 05:58 PM

Originally Posted By: LOF_Rugg
Originally Posted By: Force10
It doesn't need to be stated over and over again that it's just their opinion.


That's YOUR opinion.........

Sorry, you left it open. biggrin


Now that we've identified the class clown...I know who to keep my eye on. grrr

That was the equivalent of a spitball hitting me in the back of neck while facing the chalkboard. wink
Posted By: SkateZilla

Re: Campaign after Campaign - ED's new focus - 06/29/16 06:07 PM

you got off easy, I use nerf.... cuz it's nerf or nothing.
Posted By: - Ice

Re: Campaign after Campaign - ED's new focus - 06/29/16 08:36 PM

Originally Posted By: LOF_Rugg
Originally Posted By: Force10
It doesn't need to be stated over and over again that it's just their opinion.


That's YOUR opinion.........

Sorry, you left it open. biggrin


OMG, this is just golden!! Luckily, I didn't get any drink on my keyboard!

To Rugg, I bow down before your greatness!
kneeldown
Posted By: Paradaz

Re: Campaign after Campaign - ED's new focus - 08/05/16 09:30 PM

Bravo, another new campaign.......this time with the most ridiculous storyline.

In an attempt to justify the random aircraft lineup, you pull your airframe out of a museum to help fight the battle. </chortle>
Posted By: SkateZilla

Re: Campaign after Campaign - ED's new focus - 08/05/16 09:52 PM

Umm what do you think will happen if US forces begin tk lose inventory....

Pull Aircraft from AMARC
Posted By: - Ice

Re: Campaign after Campaign - ED's new focus - 08/05/16 10:07 PM

Um, yeah, but that's an AIR FORCE pulling out stuff that it went and stored. This one is a private individual choosing to enter the war and bringing with him his own aircraft.

Quote:
You will fly as a character who, at the beginning of the war, was just a civilian. But after seeing the dire situation his country is facing, he decides to enlist in the Matova Army Air Corp. With his enlistment papers, he also brings with him his personal aircraft which he had donated to the Museum years ago.


So how old is the character exactly? Mid-20s at the youngest, and definitely belonging to the upper class of his society. Might be a good story for anime or 1980's BattleTech, but I'm not sure about something that's supposed to be a fairly-modern real-Earth storyline.
Posted By: Paradaz

Re: Campaign after Campaign - ED's new focus - 08/05/16 10:21 PM

Originally Posted By: SkateZilla
Umm what do you think will happen if US forces begin tk lose inventory....

Pull Aircraft from AMARC


I wasn't thinking straight.......yes, US forces will request that civilians enlist and to remember to bring their own aircraft.

Did you really just reply with that - and it seems you were being serious too! Don't ever join the military Skate.........I'd hate to think how much damage you could do: to the insides of internal organs as squaddies rupture their insides laughing.
Posted By: Johnny_Redd

Re: Campaign after Campaign - ED's new focus - 08/05/16 10:30 PM

Originally Posted By: Paradaz
Bravo, another new campaign.......this time with the most ridiculous storyline.

In an attempt to justify the random aircraft lineup, you pull your airframe out of a museum to help fight the battle. </chortle>

LMAO.
"Matova and Obristen" LMAO
I would say "how about creating a Korea theatre for those two aircraft instead of making up some bullsh1t like that" But that would delay everything else currently in production. One really has to laugh at the way this game is progressing if one hadn't of spend ones money already.
Posted By: SkateZilla

Re: Campaign after Campaign - ED's new focus - 08/05/16 10:34 PM

Originally Posted By: Paradaz
Originally Posted By: SkateZilla
Umm what do you think will happen if US forces begin tk lose inventory....

Pull Aircraft from AMARC


I wasn't thinking straight.......yes, US forces will request that civilians enlist and to remember to bring their own aircraft.

Did you really just reply with that - and it seems you were being serious too! Don't ever join the military Skate.........I'd hate to think how much damage you could do: to the insides of internal organs as squaddies rupture their insides laughing.


What do you think the volunteer draft is?


as for the character in the story bringing his personal aircraft....... that's entirely his decision, the country is short on fighters, he has one, that he has plenty of flight time in...

its called.. i dunno... Fiction...

As for me not joining the military, it wont happen for 2 reasons, A. I have a physical ailment that prevents me from doing so, and B. Even if i Could by some miracle get a waiver, there's no Tomcats anymore.
Posted By: Johnny_Redd

Re: Campaign after Campaign - ED's new focus - 08/05/16 10:35 PM

Originally Posted By: Paradaz
Originally Posted By: SkateZilla
Umm what do you think will happen if US forces begin tk lose inventory....

Pull Aircraft from AMARC


I wasn't thinking straight.......yes, US forces will request that civilians enlist and to remember to bring their own aircraft.

Even my wife is laughing at that. Hilarious
Posted By: SkateZilla

Re: Campaign after Campaign - ED's new focus - 08/05/16 10:36 PM

Originally Posted By: Johnny_Redd
Originally Posted By: Paradaz
Originally Posted By: SkateZilla
Umm what do you think will happen if US forces begin tk lose inventory....

Pull Aircraft from AMARC


I wasn't thinking straight.......yes, US forces will request that civilians enlist and to remember to bring their own aircraft.

Even my wife is laughing at that. Hilarious


I aim to bring joy to everyone's lives..

Cept Tom's... He gets Kitten Pictures..
Posted By: Johnny_Redd

Re: Campaign after Campaign - ED's new focus - 08/05/16 10:38 PM

DCS release dates
Originally Posted By: SkateZilla
its called.. i dunno... Fiction...
Posted By: SkateZilla

Re: Campaign after Campaign - ED's new focus - 08/05/16 10:40 PM

Originally Posted By: Johnny_Redd
DCS release dates
Originally Posted By: SkateZilla
its called.. i dunno... Fiction...



Dont go there, cause there's been plnety of "fiction" posted here about E.D. from plenty of former ED Forum Members.
Posted By: Johnny_Redd

Re: Campaign after Campaign - ED's new focus - 08/05/16 10:44 PM

Couldn't resist rofl
Posted By: Paradaz

Re: Campaign after Campaign - ED's new focus - 08/06/16 06:49 AM

Originally Posted By: SkateZilla

its called.. i dunno... Fiction


Can you remind me what the 'DCS' abbreviation represents? Can I also request that the 'S' is exchanged for an 'F'........because FARCE is appropriate.

I also look forward to the next ED module which will fit in nicely with the existing lineup. Please welcome DCS Blimp.........the ED brainstorming/farcical dreamworld has already started to see how a new campaign can support this module. But be sure, there will be opposing barrage balloons in the Caucasus airspace too,
Posted By: theOden

Re: Campaign after Campaign - ED's new focus - 08/06/16 09:07 AM

For any MiG-15bis e-pilots in here I'd like to recommend the "The Museum Relic Campaign" - only two missions in but really enjoying it.
Posted By: LOF_Rugg

Re: Campaign after Campaign - ED's new focus - 08/07/16 12:01 PM

Originally Posted By: SkateZilla


Dont go there, cause there's been plnety of "fiction" posted here about E.D. from plenty of former ED Forum Members.


*Sigh*
Posted By: Flogger23m

Re: Campaign after Campaign - ED's new focus - 08/07/16 10:36 PM

The campaign's premise is rather silly. It does not seem pay grade worthy, IMO. And this illustrates the problem with the oddball aircraft without the content to go with it. Given the pace of development it would be best to stay with later cold war era to modern aircraft. Exception would be WWII, considering that is getting a proper theater.
Posted By: leaf_on_the_wind

Re: Campaign after Campaign - ED's new focus - 08/08/16 08:38 AM

I got the email, then went to the forum post and PMSL

Jesus H Titty F*****g Christ , can't believe they released this, is it April 1st again ?
Posted By: Paul Rix

Re: Campaign after Campaign - ED's new focus - 08/08/16 12:32 PM

Museum Relic is $10 which I think is pretty good value for the amount of work that went into it. The MiG 15 is fun to fly (awesome in VR). This campaign looks like it will be fun to fly (I'm only one mission into it so far). Mission 1 was pretty neat as an introduction.

Is the storyline authentic or even plausible? No, but you guys are missing out if you won't allow yourselves to have a little fun. If you take things so seriously that you can't use a little imagination to enjoy yourselves with a campaign like this then I suggest you are maybe taking things a little too seriously. You can always keep your $10 if you are so inclined. Nobody is forcing you to purchase the campaign or aircraft required to fly it (all developed 3rd party, so I don't see how anyone can really complain about their place in the lineup. Just my humble opinion of course, FWIW.
Posted By: Johnny_Redd

Re: Campaign after Campaign - ED's new focus - 08/08/16 12:48 PM

I'll be keeping my $10. The whole premise of the campaign seems ridiculous to me so that in itself reduces the "fun" factor. Kind of like releasing the P51 with a German skin because there was no adversary for it at the time. Just my opinion.
I find more fun in P3D, Warthunder and BoS at the moment.
Posted By: Jedi Master

Re: Campaign after Campaign - ED's new focus - 08/08/16 01:40 PM

Story in flight sim campaigns is irrelevant beyond "fly here, fight this, fly back." All that matters is if there are interesting elements to the missions and if the missions together work towards an objective like advancing a front line, destroying a particular target, or delaying an enemy advance until X occurs.

My biggest problem with campaigns and missions for the older jets and props is there aren't enough air and ground units to flesh out the world. Sure, a single mission of 86s vs 15s is great. However, after a few go by you wish you'd see some Yaks. Some B-29s. Some Panthers. A 1950s carrier launching them. Stuff like that.




The Jedi Master
Posted By: VIKBELL

Re: Campaign after Campaign - ED's new focus - 08/09/16 03:31 PM

If I have to pay for the Mig 15 I not interested, I don't want it. I already have the F-86.
Posted By: LukeFF

Re: Campaign after Campaign - ED's new focus - 08/10/16 09:16 PM

Originally Posted By: SkateZilla
its called.. i dunno... Fiction...


It's still a ridiculous storyline.
Posted By: Force10

Re: Campaign after Campaign - ED's new focus - 08/20/16 08:03 AM

Originally Posted By: VIKBELL
If I have to pay for the Mig 15 I not interested, I don't want it. I already have the F-86.


It's unfortunate that you have to own both modules for this campaign. Looks like it was just a miscommunication:

Quote:


Hello everyone,
First of all, my apologies for a late response, I've been busy with real world work all day.
Secondly, I was able to get a hold of Wags, and unfortunately my fears about compatibility are true. As of right now, you must own both the MiG-15 and F-86 modules in order to play this campaign. I want to reassure everyone that this is, in no way, a ploy by ED to force a purchase of an aircraft you may not want. Rather, this is a miscommunication during our initial conversations months ago, and I'll take the blame for that.
The way modules, keys, and all that "behinds the scenes stuff" works,, is that since this is a campaign for two platforms, you do need both. Imagine there's a FC3 campaign, and you want to fly it, but you only own 1 of the 6 aircraft. It wouldn't work because you would need the other 5 aircraft as well. That's the best analogy I can come up with right now.
Rest assured that I am working with Matt, and ED, to figure out a way that I can get this campaign to those of you with only 1 of the 2 aircraft. This was my initial intention, and I will work to make it reality.
Again, I sincerely apologize for the current confusion, and hope to soon see it remedied. Thank you all, for your understanding.
-Apache600


So if you only own one of the modules with no interest in the other...it would cost you $60 for this campaign since you would have to purchase the other module. Seems pretty steep for a fictitious campaign of this kind. They would probably sell more copies if they freed up the two module requirement.

Posted By: David_OC

Re: Campaign after Campaign - ED's new focus - 08/20/16 09:01 AM

I know I'm looking forward to Ranger79's "Operation Piercing Fury" for the A10C

A Campaign built from a OEF/OIF Veteran's perspective should be very good I think. Really cannot wait for this one to come out.

Ranger79 has some videos samples up if you want to check it out. http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=159394

I was thinking the reason ED may put out more Campaigns is to generate some cash flow obviously; would this be to allow ED to grow? (Train up more coders in ED’s own built technology now) to speed up future development after the merging of everything. I guess it would take a considerable time to train up new coders?

From a business stand point, suppose I do understand. Just hope things do go quicker once everything is in place and combined/merged together. Bring on carrier operations, I'm not getting any younger.
Posted By: leaf_on_the_wind

Re: Campaign after Campaign - ED's new focus - 08/20/16 10:11 AM

Rather, this is a miscommunication

Rather, this is a miscommunication

Kinda reminds me of when "Black Shark 2 - the quest for more money" was released

Hey lets ask people to pay again for something they already have paid for
and put it in the guise of an "Upgrade" , even though we said it was going to be
a modular sim from the start and they already paid once for this product

The misscommunication was that apparently no-one knew they were going to do this until
it was "re-released" that morning??????
Posted By: LOF_Rugg

Re: Campaign after Campaign - ED's new focus - 08/20/16 04:11 PM

Remember the good old days when the fans made campaigns for everyone else, for free? Before all the banning and such. Not liking what this community is turning into.
Posted By: Johnny_Redd

Re: Campaign after Campaign - ED's new focus - 08/20/16 05:14 PM

Originally Posted By: LOF_Rugg
Remember the good old days when the fans made campaigns for everyone else, for free? Before all the banning and such. Not liking what this community is turning into.

Yeah I kind of done with DCS until the products I'm owed are released. One half the community doesnt respect the other halves right to complain about the products that they have paid for. The bannings and warnings over on the official shop floor forums just increase the division in the community. It's really not a healthy community. So I bow out of DCS until I receive a newsletter that announces my long awaited purchases are released. I won't hold my breath for that as I'm pretty sure, going on what has gone before, that will take 5 years at the very least.
edit.
The sim just feels like a dead end at the moment. Waiting times, between each small update, are just too long for me to feel like any real development is taking place.
Posted By: Jedi Master

Re: Campaign after Campaign - ED's new focus - 08/22/16 01:38 PM

Originally Posted By: Force10
Originally Posted By: VIKBELL
If I have to pay for the Mig 15 I not interested, I don't want it. I already have the F-86.


It's unfortunate that you have to own both modules for this campaign. Looks like it was just a miscommunication:

Quote:


Hello everyone,
First of all, my apologies for a late response, I've been busy with real world work all day.
Secondly, I was able to get a hold of Wags, and unfortunately my fears about compatibility are true. As of right now, you must own both the MiG-15 and F-86 modules in order to play this campaign. I want to reassure everyone that this is, in no way, a ploy by ED to force a purchase of an aircraft you may not want. Rather, this is a miscommunication during our initial conversations months ago, and I'll take the blame for that.
The way modules, keys, and all that "behinds the scenes stuff" works,, is that since this is a campaign for two platforms, you do need both. Imagine there's a FC3 campaign, and you want to fly it, but you only own 1 of the 6 aircraft. It wouldn't work because you would need the other 5 aircraft as well. That's the best analogy I can come up with right now.
Rest assured that I am working with Matt, and ED, to figure out a way that I can get this campaign to those of you with only 1 of the 2 aircraft. This was my initial intention, and I will work to make it reality.
Again, I sincerely apologize for the current confusion, and hope to soon see it remedied. Thank you all, for your understanding.
-Apache600


So if you only own one of the modules with no interest in the other...it would cost you $60 for this campaign since you would have to purchase the other module. Seems pretty steep for a fictitious campaign of this kind. They would probably sell more copies if they freed up the two module requirement.



It's a pretty simple solution--make three versions of the campaign. One F-86-only, one MiG-15-only, one both.

Not sure what all the "working" is about.


The Jedi Master
Posted By: Paradaz

Re: Campaign after Campaign - ED's new focus - 09/09/16 06:29 PM

And here we have another new campaign...at least they're keeping ED busy with the installers, support and release at a bare minimum.

More content to test and integrate into the next build when it all goes horribly wrong.
Posted By: Cajun

Re: Campaign after Campaign - ED's new focus - 09/09/16 07:40 PM

The campaigns are great. Keep em coming.
Posted By: SkateZilla

Re: Campaign after Campaign - ED's new focus - 09/09/16 09:01 PM

What installers? Everything is a single build data base, items are merged into builds, and those builds are distributed through the updater.
There are no installers.
Posted By: Paradaz

Re: Campaign after Campaign - ED's new focus - 09/09/16 09:28 PM

Originally Posted By: SkateZilla
What installers? Everything is a single build data base, items are merged into builds, and those builds are distributed through the updater.
There are no installers.


Well, 'Ranger79' certainly isn't merging or distributing anything, definition of terms - call it what you want. I'd just rather all resources at ED were concentrating on the core work and not getting sidetracked with all sorts of periphery that's posted about in the 60 pages within this thread.

I'm sure there is enough for ED to be working on regarding incomplete content, multiple branches and then there is the test and integration of all these new campaigns every time a new build is published (or should be). The more content ED allow into the unfinished world, the more there is to test and the more there is to go wrong as DCS World and the engine matures and these problems have already happened in interim releases as proven in the past.

What comes after the 2.5 merge? 35 standalone campaigns of which none that work....and would I be surprised if that happens? No, not in the slightest. Looking forward to that like a hole in the head.
Posted By: LOF_Rugg

Re: Campaign after Campaign - ED's new focus - 09/10/16 08:17 AM

Ouch, Paradaz with the troof smackdown!
Posted By: Sobek

Re: Campaign after Campaign - ED's new focus - 09/10/16 09:01 AM

Originally Posted By: LOF_Rugg
Ouch, Paradaz with the troof smackdown!


More like putting his foot in his mouth. If you don't have a clue how repositories work, you might not be qualified to critisize ED on how much work it is for them to "integrate" a campaign.
Posted By: - Ice

Re: Campaign after Campaign - ED's new focus - 09/10/16 10:51 AM

Originally Posted By: Sobek
More like putting his foot in his mouth. If you don't have a clue how repositories work, you might not be qualified to critisize ED on how much work it is for them to "integrate" a campaign.

Maybe we don't need any clue about "repositories" or how programming works when we've seen in the past how tutorials and campaigns get borked after an "update" or patch??


Originally Posted By: Paradaz
I'd just rather all resources at ED were concentrating on the core work and not getting sidetracked with all sorts of periphery

Just waiting for those that will say "but, but, but.... the people who work on the "core" have nothing to do with those that make campaigns!" biggrin
Posted By: Sobek

Re: Campaign after Campaign - ED's new focus - 09/10/16 11:20 AM

Originally Posted By: - Ice
Maybe we don't need any clue about "repositories" or how programming works when we've seen in the past how tutorials and campaigns get borked after an "update" or patch??

As far as i am aware, ED don't fix 3rd party campaigns, that needs to be done by the developer.

Training missions are something else entirely. Still, the training missions for 3rd party modules need to be maintained by the respective 3rd party. But why bring training missions up? You suddenly object to those too?

Originally Posted By: - Ice

Just waiting for those that will say "but, but, but.... the people who work on the "core" have nothing to do with those that make campaigns!" biggrin


So? You not agreeing with that statement for whatever mythological reason is hip for today doesn't make it wrong.

Is there any actual argument coming because so far it's just noise by people who don't have a clue about the process.

Edit:

After rereading this post, i came to the conclusion that it might be a bit harsher than i intended originally. The point i'm trying to make is: There are things where criticising ED is absolutely valid, like how their modules are starting to decline in value (campaigns as DLC instead of at least one packaged with a module) or how they sometimes have knee jerk reactions even to valid criticism. Complaining however that something that costs the repository maintainer 10 seconds to pull into the project and actually generates revenue for ED and a 3rd party takes away resources from development is absolutely nonsensical.
Posted By: Paradaz

Re: Campaign after Campaign - ED's new focus - 09/10/16 02:58 PM

Originally Posted By: Sobek
or how they sometimes have knee jerk reactions even to valid criticism.


Perfectly demonstrated
Posted By: Sobek

Re: Campaign after Campaign - ED's new focus - 09/10/16 07:49 PM

Originally Posted By: Paradaz
Perfectly demonstrated


You mean your absolute incapability to acknowledge that i am not associated with Eagle Dynamics? Hooray to you, what a tremendous feat. cheers

Why not contribute constructively to the discussion and talk about the topic of this thread instead of ourselves?
Posted By: - Ice

Re: Campaign after Campaign - ED's new focus - 09/10/16 07:58 PM

Originally Posted By: Paradaz
Perfectly demonstrated

Sometimes, the comedy just writes itself! biggrin

Originally Posted By: Sobek
Originally Posted By: - Ice
Maybe we don't need any clue about "repositories" or how programming works when we've seen in the past how tutorials and campaigns get borked after an "update" or patch??

As far as i am aware, ED don't fix 3rd party campaigns, that needs to be done by the developer.

I feel sorry for the developer then.

Originally Posted By: Sobek
Training missions are something else entirely. Still, the training missions for 3rd party modules need to be maintained by the respective 3rd party. But why bring training missions up? You suddenly object to those too?

Nope, just citing examples where things that used to be working fine no longer work after a patch.

Originally Posted By: Sobek
Originally Posted By: - Ice

Just waiting for those that will say "but, but, but.... the people who work on the "core" have nothing to do with those that make campaigns!" biggrin


So? You not agreeing with that statement for whatever mythological reason is hip for today doesn't make it wrong.

Is there any actual argument coming because so far it's just noise by people who don't have a clue about the process.

Huh? What are you saying here? I was just trying to predict one of the avenues of argument for these things.


Originally Posted By: Sobek
The point i'm trying to make is: There are things where criticising ED is absolutely valid, like how their modules are starting to decline in value (campaigns as DLC instead of at least one packaged with a module) or how they sometimes have knee jerk reactions even to valid criticism. Complaining however that something that costs the repository maintainer 10 seconds to pull into the project and actually generates revenue for ED and a 3rd party takes away resources from development is absolutely nonsensical.

Point 1: how do we know this new campaign didn't pull resources from ED?
Point 2: how do we know this new campaign won't be borked in the neverending patching process?
Point 3: which of the above points are not valid?
Posted By: Sobek

Re: Campaign after Campaign - ED's new focus - 09/10/16 08:18 PM

Originally Posted By: - Ice

Point 1: how do we know this new campaign didn't pull resources from ED?


Because it was made by Ranger79.

Originally Posted By: - Ice

Point 2: how do we know this new campaign won't be borked in the neverending patching process?


We don't. Updates always have an inherent risk to introduce a regression.

Originally Posted By: - Ice
Point 3: which of the above points are not valid?

Point 1.

As for point 2, what is the alternative to living with a certain risk of something being broken (at least for a short period)? ED ceasing all feature development, fixing current bugs and then freezing the software forever. Is that something you would want?
Posted By: Paradaz

Re: Campaign after Campaign - ED's new focus - 09/10/16 08:30 PM

Originally Posted By: Sobek
Because it was made by Ranger79.


So 'Ranger79' fully tests it with an ED future build given that it won't be incorporated with a build that he creates the campaign with.

'Ranger79' prepares the campaign package and tests it in the development build before it goes live.

'Ranger79' manages the campaign upload and file repositories.

'Ranger79' prepares the promotional material and announces the campaign on the ED newsletter.

'Ranger79' sorts out the configuration management of software and documentation.

'Ranger79' maintains the build record and patch notes.

What are ED doing with their resources whilst 'Ranger79' is taking care of all of this? sigh
Posted By: Sobek

Re: Campaign after Campaign - ED's new focus - 09/10/16 08:51 PM

Originally Posted By: Paradaz
So 'Ranger79' fully tests it with an ED future build given that it won't be incorporated with a build that he creates the campaign with.


I doubt that campaigns by 3rd parties are tested against future versions, but that is an assumption.

Originally Posted By: Paradaz

'Ranger79' prepares the campaign package and tests it in the development build before it goes live.


See above.

Originally Posted By: Paradaz

'Ranger79' manages the campaign upload and file repositories.


Maybe he has it in a repo, but he probably doesn't. Pushing a file tree into a SVN repo is a one-liner in bash.

Originally Posted By: Paradaz

'Ranger79' prepares the promotional material and announces the campaign on the ED newsletter.


The trailer was shot by someone named Eight Ball (credits are at the end). I don't know the guy, pretty sure he's not ED staff. Chizh writes a newsletter every week. It probably takes him less time if he can copy paste in a campaign promo paragraph than having to come up with something himself.

Originally Posted By: Paradaz

'Ranger79' sorts out the configuration management of software and documentation.


You mean the documentation of the campaign? Sure, why not. What else is there to document?

Originally Posted By: Paradaz

'Ranger79' maintains the build record and patch notes.


Build record? You are aware that you don't have to compile campaigns, are you? Patch notes, well, i assume he sends ED a text file and they put it in their list. Let me see, reaching for Ctrl+C and then for Ctrl+V, OMG all them ressources!!!!!!

Originally Posted By: Paradaz

What are ED doing with their resources whilst 'Ranger79' is taking care of all of this? sigh


Developing DCS? Just an idea.
Posted By: - Ice

Re: Campaign after Campaign - ED's new focus - 09/10/16 09:08 PM

Originally Posted By: Sobek
Originally Posted By: - Ice

Point 1: how do we know this new campaign didn't pull resources from ED?


Because it was made by Ranger79.

And he had absolutely no help at all from ED?

Originally Posted By: Sobek
Originally Posted By: - Ice

Point 2: how do we know this new campaign won't be borked in the neverending patching process?


We don't. Updates always have an inherent risk to introduce a regression.

Yeah, DCS more than most, so much so that it's almost guaranteed.

Originally Posted By: Sobek
Originally Posted By: - Ice
Point 3: which of the above points are not valid?

Point 1.

As for point 2, what is the alternative to living with a certain risk of something being broken (at least for a short period)? ED ceasing all feature development, fixing current bugs and then freezing the software forever. Is that something you would want?

Point 1. Why is it not valid? Are we not allowed to ask questions anymore?
Point 2. 5% risk is different from 30% risk is different from 60% risk is different from 80% risk. How often have tutorials and campaigns been NOT BORKED after a patch vs. how often have they been BORKED after a patch? How often would you expect a developer to fix a campaign for each patch before the developer decides it's not worth it anymore? Would you write a program for an "alpha OS" which is essentially what DCS World is at the moment or would you wait for the "OS" to mature a bit more before proceeding?
Posted By: Paradaz

Re: Campaign after Campaign - ED's new focus - 09/10/16 09:10 PM

Originally Posted By: "Sobek"
I doubt that campaigns by 3rd parties are tested against future versions, but that is an assumption.


Well, they should be and if they aren't that would explain why obvious things are totally broken on interim releases.

So there you go, ED are involved with all of the points in my previous list - yes, ED are developing DCS, but they're also having to put additional resources into periphery that isn't essential and shouldn't be high on their priority list. Resources that could be put into the core development work.

Now magnify this work by as many campaigns there are, now magnify it again when one of ED's builds breaks a campaign because all of this will need checking and updating.

Now magnify this again when 2.5 merges and all this additional content has to be checked and tested.

Surely you can see it's irrelevant who creates a campaign, you seem to think that just because someone else puts a campaign together then ED have no involvement. ED are using resources to pull it all together and the examples I gave in the previous post are probably the tip of the iceberg.
Posted By: Sobek

Re: Campaign after Campaign - ED's new focus - 09/10/16 09:22 PM

Originally Posted By: Paradaz

So there you go, ED are involved with all of the points in my previous list - yes,


No, please actually read my answer.

Originally Posted By: Paradaz

ED are developing DCS, but they're also having to put additional resources into periphery that isn't essential and shouldn't be high on their priority list.


This is something that generates revenue. Do is really require an explanation in what way something that generates revenue for very little involvement is a good thing for the areas of work that don't directly generate revenue?

Originally Posted By: Paradaz

Now magnify this work by as many campaigns there are, now magnify it again when one of ED's builds breaks a campaign because all of this will need checking and updating.


You saying fixing a bug that breaks 10 campaigns is more work than fixing a bug that breaks one campaign?

As for testing, yes, fixes have to be tested. But whether you like it or not, much of that is being outsourced to the open beta program.

Originally Posted By: Paradaz

Surely you can see it's irrelevant who creates a campaign.


I would, if that would make any sense...
Posted By: Sobek

Re: Campaign after Campaign - ED's new focus - 09/10/16 09:33 PM

Originally Posted By: - Ice

And he had absolutely no help at all from ED?


Doesn't say anywhere that the campaign was done by ED and Ranger79. The credits of the vid also say that Ranger79 is the creator. Why do you think he would need help from ED?

Originally Posted By: - Ice

Yeah, DCS more than most, so much so that it's almost guaranteed.


Pretty much an exaggeration, but yeah, sometimes things get borked.

Originally Posted By: - Ice

Point 1. Why is it not valid?


Because the credits indicate that ED was not involved in the creation of the campaign.

Originally Posted By: - Ice

Are we not allowed to ask questions anymore?


What makes you think so?????

Originally Posted By: - Ice

Point 2. 5% risk is different from 30% risk is different from 60% risk is different from 80% risk. How often have tutorials and campaigns been NOT BORKED after a patch vs. how often have they been BORKED after a patch?


In my experience, pretty often. When it did indeed happen, it got hotfixed.

Originally Posted By: - Ice

How often would you expect a developer to fix a campaign for each patch before the developer decides it's not worth it anymore?


Now that is an interesting question. It surely depends on the business model of the respective party. We do not know at this point how ED will handle such a situation. If i bought a campaign and it is no longer maintained, i would lobby ED to make it freeware so the community can maintain it.

Originally Posted By: - Ice

Would you write a program for an "alpha OS" which is essentially what DCS World is at the moment or would you wait for the "OS" to mature a bit more before proceeding?


I find 1.5 a pretty stable platform. Is your experience different?
Posted By: Paradaz

Re: Campaign after Campaign - ED's new focus - 09/10/16 09:54 PM

Since when did 'stable' indicate that software cannot be alpha and is already mature. 'ICE' didn't even mention the word stable, therefore why are you? Do they mean the same thing in your opinion as it may explain a lot of things.

I can see the mindset of ED here.....and why they don't think they have to finish anything since a stable build means the alpha/beta is finished and essentially complete. If your statements mirror ED's process then they need a massive kick up the backside. Simple as that.
Posted By: - Ice

Re: Campaign after Campaign - ED's new focus - 09/10/16 10:07 PM

Originally Posted By: Sobek
This is something that generates revenue. Do is really require an explanation in what way something that generates revenue for very little involvement is a good thing for the areas of work that don't directly generate revenue?

Sure, it generates revenue, and nothing wrong with that.
However, is the revenue gained NOW be worth the hassle of having customers complain later on when the campaign is broken on patch release? What I'm saying is that sometimes, it's better to hold back until you have a better, polished product. That way, you (er, ED in this case) will have revenue AND satisfied customers.

Originally Posted By: Sobek
Originally Posted By: - Ice

And he had absolutely no help at all from ED?


Doesn't say anywhere that the campaign was done by ED and Ranger79. The credits of the vid also say that Ranger79 is the creator. Why do you think he would need help from ED?

Ah yes... because just anyone can make a campaign, test it, and put it up for sale by themselves. Are you serious?

Originally Posted By: Sobek
Originally Posted By: - Ice

Yeah, DCS more than most, so much so that it's almost guaranteed.


Pretty much an exaggeration, but yeah, sometimes things get borked.

"Sometimes" is different from "almost guaranteed."


Originally Posted By: Sobek
Originally Posted By: - Ice

Point 1. Why is it not valid?


Because the credits indicate that ED was not involved in the creation of the campaign.

Does it say that "ED and Belsimtek"?? Does it say "ED and Leatherneck"?? Does it say "ED and RAZBAM"?? So does that mean ED did not help these guys at all? Does that mean ED is not involved in these projects?

Where exactly are you looking at for "credits"?

Originally Posted By: Sobek
Originally Posted By: - Ice

Point 2. 5% risk is different from 30% risk is different from 60% risk is different from 80% risk. How often have tutorials and campaigns been NOT BORKED after a patch vs. how often have they been BORKED after a patch?


In my experience, pretty often. When it did indeed happen, it got hotfixed.

And here I am thinking "it shouldn't have happened in the first place, it should've been caught pre-release of the patch." I guess it's just me, huh?


Originally Posted By: Sobek
Originally Posted By: - Ice

How often would you expect a developer to fix a campaign for each patch before the developer decides it's not worth it anymore?


Now that is an interesting question. It surely depends on the business model of the respective party. We do not know at this point how ED will handle such a situation. If i bought a campaign and it is no longer maintained, i would lobby ED to make it freeware so the community can maintain it.

It is indeed an interesting question, one that I think should not be investigated. But I fear ED will test this limit in the near future.


Originally Posted By: Sobek
Originally Posted By: - Ice

Would you write a program for an "alpha OS" which is essentially what DCS World is at the moment or would you wait for the "OS" to mature a bit more before proceeding?


I find 1.5 a pretty stable platform. Is your experience different?

1.5 is stable now, yes, but things will be different going forward. Would you write a program for an "OS" now knowing you'll have to do more work each time the "OS" is patched?
Posted By: LOF_Rugg

Re: Campaign after Campaign - ED's new focus - 09/11/16 12:51 AM

Originally Posted By: Sobek
If you don't have a clue how repositories work, you might not be qualified to critisize ED on how much work it is for them to "integrate" a campaign.

Actually I understand completely. Several things. About how a new build can affect old software. And how you will continue to be an apologist for ED. Even when facts and "dah troof" is right there in front of you. I've developed for FC3. Third party. But hey, thanks for the input!!!!!
Posted By: Sobek

Re: Campaign after Campaign - ED's new focus - 09/11/16 08:25 AM

Originally Posted By: LOF_Rugg
Actually I understand completely. Several things. About how a new build can affect old software. And how you will continue to be an apologist for ED. Even when facts and "dah troof" is right there in front of you.


Facts? What facts? I see a lot of opinions on how broken DCS is, i don't see a single fact.

And to return to the topic of the thread, i see a lot of people who don't know the business end of a console trying to tell me how much ED need to go out of their way to include a third party campaign when all they need to do is push it in their repo and create a shop entry for it.

I'm not being apologetic. There's things that bug me about ED. Still this particular criticism especially concerning the latest campaign is misguided. I'd like to be able to comment on it without being character assassinated again and again.

Originally Posted By: LOF_Rugg

I've developed for FC3. Third party. But hey, thanks for the input!!!!!


So have a lot of other people that don't know how to work with version control.
Posted By: Sobek

Re: Campaign after Campaign - ED's new focus - 09/11/16 08:52 AM

Originally Posted By: - Ice

Ah yes... because just anyone can make a campaign, test it, and put it up for sale by themselves. Are you serious?


Anyone can make a campaign, yes. Not anyone can make a campaign that doesn't suck (i probably couldn't), but that is a different matter. I don't get what the big deal is? You think the step from making missions to making campaigns suddenly requires dark magic?

Originally Posted By: - Ice

"Sometimes" is different from "almost guaranteed."


Hence why i think your statement is an exaggeration. We'll probably have to agree to disagree. I'm not inclined to spend hours to make a statistic of how often campaigns get broken and i assume you feel the same.

Originally Posted By: - Ice

Where exactly are you looking at for "credits"?


There's two frames at the end of the promo video, one states that the campaign was created by Ranger79, the other states who made the video.

Originally Posted By: - Ice

And here I am thinking "it shouldn't have happened in the first place, it should've been caught pre-release of the patch." I guess it's just me, huh?


People shouldn't have to die of starvation every day either and yet they do.

I've spent enough of my time testing software vital to the security of car passengers to know that it's not financially viable to test to the same standards in lines of business where human lives are not at stake. The amount of work necessary to ensure that software is virtually bug-free (which even the software i tested wasn't, btw., but at least we made sure that the risk of catastrophic failure was miniscule) is enormous.

Knowing the realities of software development, i don't find it hard to accept that even important aspects of the software get broken from time to time, as long as they get fixed afterwards in a timely manner.


Originally Posted By: - Ice

It is indeed an interesting question, one that I think should not be investigated. But I fear ED will test this limit in the near future.


Why not? I would very much like to know if there is some sort of contingency plan if, perish the thought, something should happen to a campaign dev and he can't maintain it shortly after release, for example.

Originally Posted By: - Ice

1.5 is stable now, yes, but things will be different going forward. Would you write a program for an "OS" now knowing you'll have to do more work each time the "OS" is patched?


There is always some big milestone on the horizon. When you develop for DCS, you need to accept this reality (it's not like it's all bad, i'm sure devs are quite happy that they get new features as opposed to MSFS, e.g.) and deal with it best you can. There is no 'just sit this development step out and then everything will work out itself'. The only way this can ever 'work out itself' is if there was such a steep increase in revenue that ED could increase its QA department tenfold and 3rd parties could establish their own QA departments with testers on a payroll, but i don't see that happening.
Posted By: Frederf

Re: Campaign after Campaign - ED's new focus - 09/11/16 09:32 AM

I have no confidence in the quality of campaigns for sale based on the quality of campaigns included in modules for sale. The current set I own range from completely broken at worst to underwhelming at best with most being practically unplayable. I don't blame the mission makers; the tools are anemic, platform quicksand, AI limited, demographic uneducated, and the modules themselves in various states of working. The most talented mission maker on Earth would struggle to make an enjoyable scenario given these raw ingredients.

Do any of these campaigns have a demo mission? I'm not paying for reported quality until I see it with my own eyes.
Posted By: Gliptal

Re: Campaign after Campaign - ED's new focus - 09/11/16 10:42 AM

Originally Posted By: Frederf
I have no confidence in the quality of campaigns for sale based on the quality of campaigns included in modules for sale. The current set I own range from completely broken at worst to underwhelming at best with most being practically unplayable. I don't blame the mission makers; the tools are anemic, platform quicksand, AI limited, demographic uneducated, and the modules themselves in various states of working. The most talented mission maker on Earth would struggle to make an enjoyable scenario given these raw ingredients.

Do any of these campaigns have a demo mission? I'm not paying for reported quality until I see it with my own eyes.
Do you have the M-2000C module?
Posted By: Pikes

Re: Campaign after Campaign - ED's new focus - 09/11/16 12:46 PM

One issue I see is the massive difference between what a campaign is in ED's eyes and what some other people think it should be. For example, the ED style of campaign, requires a linear points scoring trip where at the end of one flight you have either scored enough to proceed to "LEVEL 2", or you go back to "LEVEL 1".

Now I'm somewhat OK with the answer, "It is what it is". But let me say. It's rubbish.

A campaign should be a continuously played out scenario, where if the player wants to partake, he can and if not, he can watch the computer continue itself. A campaign will be heavily limited by logistics and it will continue beyond one sortie. As a single player it should be something you can pause and as a multiplayer it should be something that contiunues despite players joining and leaving, and support 'JIP', server restarts, perpetual world states including capturable and destructible scenery.

Having done some design of these at squadron level, including one we ran for 8 sessions and 24 hours of realtime in persistence, I can say I know about campaigns, not serialised missions. Making them, is not only hard, but stretches and meets limits that not many people see in the ED SSE. This idea has been touted on the forums by a great many people with some limited success over the years.

What hasn't happened is any result by ED since these asks were first vented all those years ago.

So it is not surprising that the post exists, that people are fed up of the limits of campaigns ED style. Despite even polls on the official forums by the producer, asking for what features should be next and resulting in clear "Dynamic campaign" victory so many months ago, we are no further forward in delivery.

Yes, I agree with the OP. Shove these linear, binary, dead carcasses full of fluff and media into touch and lets get some decent dynamic content for DCS.

PS...as for 1.5.4 being stable, which stack trace do you want me to send to your inboxes. I've got unanswered stuff from March. Not having more than 2 MP clients, no scripts and more than 4 waypoints with no complexity is NOT what DCS is about.
Posted By: Pikes

Re: Campaign after Campaign - ED's new focus - 09/11/16 12:53 PM

I think this is a great example of the disconnect on what a campaign is and what it shoudl be. Whilst an ED campaign does not require dark magic....something looking like what BMS does as a campaign would require mods like DAWS, tools like Witchcraft, scripts that are custom built and scripts that wholly change DCS content that are public.
So you might not be wrong. But I can not find you right either. I hope you understand that sentiment is not about saying you are wrong, but about why people cannot find agreement and why campaign releases seem so dull for some.
Originally Posted By: Sobek
Originally Posted By: - Ice

Ah yes... because just anyone can make a campaign, test it, and put it up for sale by themselves. Are you serious?


Anyone can make a campaign, yes. Not anyone can make a campaign that doesn't suck (i probably couldn't), but that is a different matter. I don't get what the big deal is? You think the step from making missions to making campaigns suddenly requires dark magic?

Originally Posted By: - Ice

"Sometimes" is different from "almost guaranteed."


Hence why i think your statement is an exaggeration. We'll probably have to agree to disagree. I'm not inclined to spend hours to make a statistic of how often campaigns get broken and i assume you feel the same.

Originally Posted By: - Ice

Where exactly are you looking at for "credits"?


There's two frames at the end of the promo video, one states that the campaign was created by Ranger79, the other states who made the video.

Originally Posted By: - Ice

And here I am thinking "it shouldn't have happened in the first place, it should've been caught pre-release of the patch." I guess it's just me, huh?


People shouldn't have to die of starvation every day either and yet they do.

I've spent enough of my time testing software vital to the security of car passengers to know that it's not financially viable to test to the same standards in lines of business where human lives are not at stake. The amount of work necessary to ensure that software is virtually bug-free (which even the software i tested wasn't, btw., but at least we made sure that the risk of catastrophic failure was miniscule) is enormous.

Knowing the realities of software development, i don't find it hard to accept that even important aspects of the software get broken from time to time, as long as they get fixed afterwards in a timely manner.


Originally Posted By: - Ice

It is indeed an interesting question, one that I think should not be investigated. But I fear ED will test this limit in the near future.


Why not? I would very much like to know if there is some sort of contingency plan if, perish the thought, something should happen to a campaign dev and he can't maintain it shortly after release, for example.

Originally Posted By: - Ice

1.5 is stable now, yes, but things will be different going forward. Would you write a program for an "OS" now knowing you'll have to do more work each time the "OS" is patched?


There is always some big milestone on the horizon. When you develop for DCS, you need to accept this reality (it's not like it's all bad, i'm sure devs are quite happy that they get new features as opposed to MSFS, e.g.) and deal with it best you can. There is no 'just sit this development step out and then everything will work out itself'. The only way this can ever 'work out itself' is if there was such a steep increase in revenue that ED could increase its QA department tenfold and 3rd parties could establish their own QA departments with testers on a payroll, but i don't see that happening.
Posted By: Paradaz

Re: Campaign after Campaign - ED's new focus - 09/11/16 03:15 PM

A great couple of posts there 'Pikes'.

From the minute I posted the original post in this thread through utter frustration in seeing continual campaign releases I hope the sentiment is identified....it's not in the great work and amount of time people are spending to actually create the additional content. It's the fact that the fundamental core foundation of DCS is still a work in progress, and this continual (and very slow) level of progress from ED means they are having to maneuver their resources around just to support other people's work at the detriment of what is really important and that is getting the core foundations in place to start with.

The last few posts from Ice and myself go beyond that and into the interim DCS updates and releases which are borking this additional content and making more work for the content provider and ED themselves....when the core foundations of the sim still need lots of work. The more of these additional campaigns we see, the more there is to go wrong and the more resources ED will have to put into their side of things to provide the fixes in due course.

ED need to focus on the core game as an absolute priority, I think Sobek made the claim of the additional revenue earlier and that's all well and good but not if all that additional revenue is lost when everything has to be fixed and retested on a total different magnitude further down the line.
Posted By: Sobek

Re: Campaign after Campaign - ED's new focus - 09/11/16 05:07 PM

Originally Posted By: Pikes
I think this is a great example of the disconnect on what a campaign is and what it shoudl be. Whilst an ED campaign does not require dark magic....something looking like what BMS does as a campaign would require mods like DAWS, tools like Witchcraft, scripts that are custom built and scripts that wholly change DCS content that are public.
So you might not be wrong. But I can not find you right either. I hope you understand that sentiment is not about saying you are wrong, but about why people cannot find agreement and why campaign releases seem so dull for some.


I think we have a bit of a misunderstanding here. I wasn't commenting at all about what *should* go into a campaign to make people happy. The discussion circled around whether an individual can, right now, compose what currently makes up a typical campaign without needing support from ED, which is perfectly possible. There's freeware campaigns of varying quality on EDs file exchange that ED has had no hand in except a moderator unlocking the uploaded file.
Posted By: - Ice

Re: Campaign after Campaign - ED's new focus - 09/11/16 06:04 PM

Originally Posted By: Sobek
Facts? What facts? I see a lot of opinions on how broken DCS is, i don't see a single fact.

I'm sorry, but at this point "DCS is broken" is a fact, and the evidence for it can be found easily depending on how the statement is framed. Not 100% broken, I'll give you that, but broken nonetheless.


Originally Posted By: Sobek
And to return to the topic of the thread, i see a lot of people who don't know the business end of a console trying to tell me how much ED need to go out of their way to include a third party campaign when all they need to do is push it in their repo and create a shop entry for it.

I don't need to know how to code in order to comment whether a thing is broken or not. I don't need to know how to fix a car in order to determine that my vehicles is running funny. Your statement in bold is an assumption. It may well be true, but so is our statement/assumption about ED having to divert resources. Since you have been talking about "facts," then where is your evidence that ED did nothing to help the campaign creator?


Originally Posted By: Sobek
Originally Posted By: - Ice

Ah yes... because just anyone can make a campaign, test it, and put it up for sale by themselves. Are you serious?

Anyone can make a campaign, yes. Not anyone can make a campaign that doesn't suck (i probably couldn't), but that is a different matter. I don't get what the big deal is? You think the step from making missions to making campaigns suddenly requires dark magic?

Make a campaign, yes. Make a campaign that you could actually sell and you'd think people would buy, well, that's a bit more complicated. Doing THAT and having ED actually put in in their store....

Plus you're missing the point. It's not about "making" the campaign that's the issue, it's going from start to sales WITH or WITHOUT ED support is what we're talking about.

Originally Posted By: Sobek
Originally Posted By: - Ice

"Sometimes" is different from "almost guaranteed."

Hence why i think your statement is an exaggeration. We'll probably have to agree to disagree. I'm not inclined to spend hours to make a statistic of how often campaigns get broken and i assume you feel the same.

Exaggeration? Maybe slightly. Saying "sometimes" is skewing it the other way, but more than "slightly." I may be off a bit when I say "almost guaranteed," but you're way off if you say "sometimes."

Originally Posted By: Sobek
Originally Posted By: - Ice

Where exactly are you looking at for "credits"?

There's two frames at the end of the promo video, one states that the campaign was created by Ranger79, the other states who made the video.

And where are the "credits" for the modules?

Stating that the campaign was made by Ranger79 is like saying the modules were created by Belsimtek/RAZBAM/etc. Just because they've not explicityly stated ED helped out does not mean ED did or did not help out. Point is: You're putting too much faith into that one frame.

Originally Posted By: Sobek
Originally Posted By: - Ice

And here I am thinking "it shouldn't have happened in the first place, it should've been caught pre-release of the patch." I guess it's just me, huh?

People shouldn't have to die of starvation every day either and yet they do.

Going off tangent there now. You're really comparing software development with starvation? Ha!


Originally Posted By: Sobek
I've spent enough of my time testing software vital to the security of car passengers to know that it's not financially viable to test to the same standards in lines of business where human lives are not at stake. The amount of work necessary to ensure that software is virtually bug-free (which even the software i tested wasn't, btw., but at least we made sure that the risk of catastrophic failure was miniscule) is enormous.

Knowing the realities of software development, i don't find it hard to accept that even important aspects of the software get broken from time to time, as long as they get fixed afterwards in a timely manner.

Sure, getting software "virtually bug-free" is a big ask. But making sure campaigns and tutorials don't get borked each time a patch comes out? That should be basic stuff. I'll give them leeway the first few times it happens, which in my experience was the Beta phase of DCS A10C. However, when it happens and keeps on happening much later, it's a different matter altogether.

Again, I LOL at your comparison of "broken campaigns and tutorials" with "car passenger security."


Originally Posted By: Sobek
Originally Posted By: - Ice

It is indeed an interesting question, one that I think should not be investigated. But I fear ED will test this limit in the near future.

Why not? I would very much like to know if there is some sort of contingency plan if, perish the thought, something should happen to a campaign dev and he can't maintain it shortly after release, for example.

Again, you're missing the point. It's not about a campaign dev stops supporting his product due to personal, RL concerns; it's about a campaign dev having so much trouble from ED and their patching process.


Originally Posted By: Sobek
There is always some big milestone on the horizon. When you develop for DCS, you need to accept this reality (it's not like it's all bad, i'm sure devs are quite happy that they get new features as opposed to MSFS, e.g.) and deal with it best you can. There is no 'just sit this development step out and then everything will work out itself'. The only way this can ever 'work out itself' is if there was such a steep increase in revenue that ED could increase its QA department tenfold and 3rd parties could establish their own QA departments with testers on a payroll, but i don't see that happening.

You must have a very broad definition of "big milestone." Also missing the point between "alpha OS" and "a more stable, mature OS in continued refinement."


Originally Posted By: Sobek
There's freeware campaigns of varying quality on EDs file exchange that ED has had no hand in except a moderator unlocking the uploaded file.

Yeah, these FREE campaigns are simply uploaded to a server and done. Are you saying that this was the same for Ranger79's campaign? No testing by ED at all? No requirements or quality standards imposed and checked by ED?

Ranger79: Hey, I've made a campaign that I'd like you to put in the official store and sell for me.
ED: Sure, upload it and we'll put it in the store. We won't check it or anything. We won't see if it's even worth selling. We need the extra revenue so anything is welcome, really.
Posted By: - Ice

Re: Campaign after Campaign - ED's new focus - 09/11/16 06:07 PM

Originally Posted By: Pikes
PS...as for 1.5.4 being stable, which stack trace do you want me to send to your inboxes. I've got unanswered stuff from March. Not having more than 2 MP clients, no scripts and more than 4 waypoints with no complexity is NOT what DCS is about.


Ouch!
lawncareby20mm

Thank you Pikes.
Posted By: Winz

Re: Campaign after Campaign - ED's new focus - 09/12/16 12:17 PM

Originally Posted By: Sobek

Originally Posted By: - Ice

Point 2. 5% risk is different from 30% risk is different from 60% risk is different from 80% risk. How often have tutorials and campaigns been NOT BORKED after a patch vs. how often have they been BORKED after a patch?

In my experience, pretty often. When it did indeed happen, it got hotfixed.

Or they get removed, like the 'Shore' campaign for A-10C.

This is the thing I'm afraid with the current way things work. DCS World is an in-development platform, it will always be. This is good on one side - i.e. you now don't have to repurchase the content, or the old content can be played with upgraded engine. But it also has downside - things breaks, especially in the hand crafted mission enviroment of DCS world. Every single, small change has the potential to break a mission. i.e. A simple change in missile performance parameter might tip the balance in the air war on the opposide team, preventing the players A-10/SU-25 to operate in theater.

Previously they were two ways how these mission could get fixed - either the mission author fixed the problem, or, when he was no longer active, someone else took the mission and fixed the issue. The problem is the latter is no longer possible, because the triggers are protected and wrapped in a .dll (and mission editor wont even let you save the mission). So now the only thing left is for the customer to hope that Ranger79, or any other, payed, campaign author will be around for the whole life of DCS World.

That said, I'm happy that DCS went with separate payed campaign. Lack of SP content was always a problem for DCS. The community campaigns, people keep mentioning, were very few and far between, and with varying quality. The good, high quality, like the Vergeev Group Campaign, were always payed. I just wish they would be some kind of publich plan, how ED plans to handle situations where the campaigns broke and the author is no longer active.
Posted By: LOF_Rugg

Re: Campaign after Campaign - ED's new focus - 09/12/16 01:33 PM

Originally Posted By: Sobek


So have a lot of other people that don't know how to work with version control.

Since you seem to insinuate that 1) all of us don't know about this 2) you know everything about this I'll 'splain some things to you.

I was involved with Crytek and their Cryengine II, our mod was the first to be recognized and supported by Crytek. You might remember who they are, FarCry and it's iterations. We had full on support from the devs. So yeah, I fully understand how different versions can break existing or future bits of software. We dealt with that all the time.

But thanks for playing Sobek.
Posted By: ST0RM

Re: Campaign after Campaign - ED's new focus - 09/12/16 02:38 PM

I dont go for the paid campaigns, but was kind of frustrated to see another week of little actual content to the modules being updated.

If NTTR is considered alpha, then why the delay in introducing new airfields? Adding content in phases continually provides interest in something. Instead, 9+ months later they'll dump everything at once, people will explore, but will burn out for another year waiting on other items to complete the map.

A solid plan would be like:
March 2016 release North Las Vegas airfield
May 2016 release Solar Farm
July 2016...

And so forth. This shows a solid commitment to continue supporting the released content. It gives the consumer confidence.

Oh well.
Posted By: Sobek

Re: Campaign after Campaign - ED's new focus - 09/12/16 07:45 PM

Originally Posted By: LOF_Rugg

I was involved with Crytek and their Cryengine II, our mod was the first to be recognized and supported by Crytek. You might remember who they are, FarCry and it's iterations. We had full on support from the devs. So yeah, I fully understand how different versions can break existing or future bits of software. We dealt with that all the time.


That is all good and dandy.

However, if you don't know how to use version control, how do you think any of your other skills enable you to tell how much work it is using it? I've worked a lot with git, SVN and what is now PTC Integrity, still i don't know jack about mercurial, so i wouldn't comment on whether it's easy to use or how much overhead it creates for me dealing with its quirks, even though all of those are different makes of version control software.

You're just continuing to raise eyebrows with me, that's all.
Posted By: PFunk

Re: Campaign after Campaign - ED's new focus - 09/12/16 08:37 PM

I'm old enough to remember when we complained about how little single player value there was in DCS.

That said, if DCS would kindly fix their Easy Avionics mode, they'd have a customer for life in me, and I know I'm not alone. It would bring in a lot of people who like Jane's USAF/SF2-style gameplay.

But, what do I know?
Posted By: - Ice

Re: Campaign after Campaign - ED's new focus - 09/12/16 09:46 PM

Originally Posted By: PFunk
That said, if DCS would kindly fix their Easy Avionics mode, they'd have a customer for life in me, and I know I'm not alone. It would bring in a lot of people who like Jane's USAF/SF2-style gameplay.

But, what do I know?

What's wrong with the Easy Avionics mode? Serious question here, as I've never played with that mode and I'm curious why you say it's broken.
Posted By: LOF_Rugg

Re: Campaign after Campaign - ED's new focus - 09/13/16 12:15 AM

Originally Posted By: Sobek


You're just continuing to raise eyebrows with me, that's all.

When I read your responses all I hear is Charlie Brown's teacher.

Thanks for playing.
Posted By: Dondy

Re: Campaign after Campaign - ED's new focus - 09/15/16 02:07 PM

Quote:
1.5.4.56500.155 hotfix.

"Operation Piercing Fury" campaign: Second mission, player parking position changed, traffic jam at the spawn fixed.


So ... was this fix done from Ranger or from ED side?
Posted By: PFunk

Re: Campaign after Campaign - ED's new focus - 09/15/16 08:20 PM

Originally Posted By: - Ice
Originally Posted By: PFunk
That said, if DCS would kindly fix their Easy Avionics mode, they'd have a customer for life in me, and I know I'm not alone. It would bring in a lot of people who like Jane's USAF/SF2-style gameplay.

But, what do I know?

What's wrong with the Easy Avionics mode? Serious question here, as I've never played with that mode and I'm curious why you say it's broken.


It simply doesn't work. You can't target anything, or even switch targets. The Russian aircraft work slightly better in Easy Avionics mode, but even then, it's not even close to being functional. The American aircraft don't even work in it.

I haven't got time to learn aircraft systems, I simply don't. However, DCS claims to offer simplified avionics for those of us who fly in casual settings. That'd be great if it worked. Until it does, they may not want to include that in their advertising.

But, it's very low on the priority list because, if you haven't noticed, the vast majority of fans were in a another thread complaining about the needle position of a cockpit gauge. I don't care about this game that much. I don't care about my car that much.
Posted By: Jedi Master

Re: Campaign after Campaign - ED's new focus - 09/15/16 08:24 PM

I would agree except that it's the reason the gauge is wrong that's important.

If it's wrong because they just didn't program the needle right, so what?

If it's wrong because there is a fundamental flaw in the engine modeling which is why the A-10 feels like a C-130 more than a CAS plane, then it's merely the smoking GAU-8 pointing to the problem. smile

I don't know which it is myself, but there is certainly an element of "all or nothing" being applied to the DCS planes that makes it harder for the casual simmer, no doubt.




The Jedi Master
Posted By: - Ice

Re: Campaign after Campaign - ED's new focus - 09/15/16 09:30 PM

Originally Posted By: PFunk
It simply doesn't work. You can't target anything, or even switch targets. The Russian aircraft work slightly better in Easy Avionics mode, but even then, it's not even close to being functional. The American aircraft don't even work in it.

I haven't got time to learn aircraft systems, I simply don't. However, DCS claims to offer simplified avionics for those of us who fly in casual settings. That'd be great if it worked. Until it does, they may not want to include that in their advertising.

But, it's very low on the priority list because, if you haven't noticed, the vast majority of fans were in a another thread complaining about the needle position of a cockpit gauge. I don't care about this game that much. I don't care about my car that much.

On which aircraft is this specifically?

IIRC, the A10C should have an Easy Mode as well.... does it not work there too?
Posted By: PFunk

Re: Campaign after Campaign - ED's new focus - 09/15/16 11:31 PM

Originally Posted By: Jedi Master
I would agree except that it's the reason the gauge is wrong that's important.

If it's wrong because they just didn't program the needle right, so what?

If it's wrong because there is a fundamental flaw in the engine modeling which is why the A-10 feels like a C-130 more than a CAS plane, then it's merely the smoking GAU-8 pointing to the problem. smile

I don't know which it is myself, but there is certainly an element of "all or nothing" being applied to the DCS planes that makes it harder for the casual simmer, no doubt.




The Jedi Master


It does tend to handle like a bus. I just figured it was because the Air Force hated its pilots.
Posted By: rezerekted

Re: Campaign after Campaign - ED's new focus - 09/19/16 10:37 PM

If you want easy avionic get a Strike Fighters 2 game from Thirdwire. Even has dynamic campaign system and loads of mods. But every plane feels the same to me in that game even though I bought a number of them.
Posted By: GrayGhost

Re: Campaign after Campaign - ED's new focus - 09/20/16 03:34 AM

Reduce weight, keep speed above 250kts and it will handle great. Also, try single-axis steering, ie. roll without pitching, pitch without rolling - this way the AoA from pitching won't slow down your roll rate.

Originally Posted By: PFunk
It does tend to handle like a bus. I just figured it was because the Air Force hated its pilots.
Posted By: SkateZilla

Re: Campaign after Campaign - ED's new focus - 09/20/16 02:42 PM

I hate it when my wingmen online load up 6 mavs and as many bombs as they can fit on the wings,

cruising speed goes from 250+ to like 215 ..
Posted By: Johnny_Redd

Re: Campaign after Campaign - ED's new focus - 09/24/16 12:54 PM

It's interesting to note the change of direction that is currently being talked about with BoS. It's clear the developers of that game have noted the reduced sales and listened to their customers. They clearly felt a need to change. I can almost guarantee that BoS will have dx11 before DCS due to the desire, albeit forced due to sales, to give the customers what they want. ED, in comparison, look like they really couldn't give a $hit about their customers concerns. It'll be ready when it's ready. "Everything is subject to change". Seriously they're trying to sell unfinished modules with that tagline? I'm gobsmacked that folk actually still buy their products.
Posted By: theOden

Re: Campaign after Campaign - ED's new focus - 09/24/16 01:02 PM

Originally Posted By: Johnny_Redd
ED, in comparison, look like they really couldn't give a $hit about their customers concerns.

I'm pretty sure we're not their real customers.
Given the weird time frames some modules consume I'm pretty sure real customer (B2B) projects pop-up putting all work we're waiting for on backburner until finished.
We're just extra dollars for what they have time to put on the civil flight simmer scene.
Posted By: Paradaz

Paradaz - 09/24/16 01:30 PM

Originally Posted By: theOden
I'm pretty sure we're not their real customers.
Given the weird time frames some modules consume I'm pretty sure real customer (B2B) projects pop-up putting all work we're waiting for on backburner until finished.
We're just extra dollars for what they have time to put on the civil flight simmer scene.


^^^ This. I also think the desktop versions of the products that we see play second fiddle to everything else - pretty much to the extent of just being an afterthought brought about through convenience.

I struggle to explain how it could be anything else as its become a complete farce. 'Everything is subject to change' isn't a caveat any more.....its a placeholder to say the desktop products will follow a path created by their commercial development and ED don't know which direction that is heading in either.
Posted By: cdelucia

Re: Paradaz - 09/24/16 04:10 PM

"I'm pretty sure we're not their real customers." <===You can take that to the bank.

Been wondering why I still have my HOTAS, rudder pedals, and TrackIR setup at my desk. They just gather dust and take up space. I'll fire up A-10C once every other month just to stay familiar. Waiting [way too long] for the F-18 with it's A2G radar. Got to thinking about how that's going to make much of a difference when the replayability factor just isn't there. For the long-term no dynamic campaign seems to be a real downer.

Downloaded BMS 4.33, installed it over F4, jumped in and just from a five minute flight it's SO much better. Going to get the HOTAS setup for it. May look a bit old, but BMS did a good job and it even uses nVidia SLI (ED doesn't give F*** about this).

Really don't know why I didn't think of this sooner. Flight modelling may not be quite as detailed (still damn good though), and the graphics are a bit dated (but run liquid smooth). Overall BMS has a ton more possibility to it than anything ED will ever give us.

I was lamenting DCS as a failure of the free market, but clearly I wasn't looking at all the options out there.
Posted By: cichlidfan

Re: Campaign after Campaign - ED's new focus - 09/24/16 04:34 PM

Originally Posted By: Johnny_Redd
I can almost guarantee that BoS will have dx11 before DCS due to the desire,...


DCS has been running on DX11 for quite some time now.
Posted By: Paul Rix

Re: Paradaz - 09/24/16 04:43 PM

BMS certainly isn't better in VR.

I still don't get the relentless negativity that is constantly voiced here about DCS World and Eagle Dynamics. From where I'm sitting we have never had it so good. The DCS flight models are excellent (not perfect but still outstanding) , the same goes for system modeling (there are some area that could use improvement but overall outstanding), a powerful mission editor l. The sim does far more right than it does wrong and yet a vocal few here just want to rip it to pieces. sigh
Posted By: Johnny_Redd

Re: Campaign after Campaign - ED's new focus - 09/24/16 05:45 PM

Originally Posted By: cichlidfan
Originally Posted By: Johnny_Redd
I can almost guarantee that BoS will have dx11 before DCS due to the desire,...


DCS has been running on DX11 for quite some time now.

Dont we still have 2 or 3 different versions running ans sti&#314;l no integrated final version. Please correct me if im wrong.
Posted By: cichlidfan

Re: Campaign after Campaign - ED's new focus - 09/24/16 06:26 PM

Originally Posted By: Johnny_Redd
Originally Posted By: cichlidfan
Originally Posted By: Johnny_Redd
I can almost guarantee that BoS will have dx11 before DCS due to the desire,...


DCS has been running on DX11 for quite some time now.

Dont we still have 2 or 3 different versions running ans sti&#314;l no integrated final version. Please correct me if im wrong.


Yes, there are still multiple versions and all of them are DX11.
Posted By: Para_Bellum

Re: Paradaz - 09/24/16 06:36 PM

Originally Posted By: Paul Rix
...The sim does far more right than it does wrong and yet a vocal few here just want to rip it to pieces. sigh


And that's why you don't see the guys who actually play and enjoy DCS posting here anymore.

Gotta go, there's an overpriced, unfinished and buggy F-5 module waiting for me...

exitstageleft
Posted By: Johnny_Redd

Re: Campaign after Campaign - ED's new focus - 09/24/16 06:59 PM

Originally Posted By: cichlidfan
Originally Posted By: Johnny_Redd
Originally Posted By: cichlidfan
Originally Posted By: Johnny_Redd
I can almost guarantee that BoS will have dx11 before DCS due to the desire,...


DCS has been running on DX11 for quite some time now.

Dont we still have 2 or 3 different versions running ans sti&#314;l no integrated final version. Please correct me if im wrong.


Yes, there are still multiple versions and all of them are DX11.

And all of them arent finished.
Posted By: Sobek

Re: Campaign after Campaign - ED's new focus - 09/24/16 07:01 PM

Originally Posted By: Johnny_Redd
And all of them arent finished.


1.5.4 is finished, it's on the release channel.
Posted By: Paradaz

Paradaz - 09/24/16 07:05 PM

Originally Posted By: Paul Rix
BMS certainly isn't better in VR.

I still don't get the relentless negativity that is constantly voiced here about DCS World and Eagle Dynamics. From where I'm sitting we have never had it so good. The DCS flight models are excellent (not perfect but still outstanding) , the same goes for system modeling (there are some area that could use improvement but overall outstanding), a powerful mission editor l. The sim does far more right than it does wrong and yet a vocal few here just want to rip it to pieces. sigh


Any you obviously haven't seen the posts that state people are still playing and enjoying the sim but are just disappointed that the enormous potential simply isn't being realised. No-one is here because they aren't playing DCS anymore and just enjoy wasting their time on a forum discussing the negative points that could easily be improved.

If your version of 'never had it so good' incorporates a world with split development branches, everything unfinished with no real indication of progress, additional content that only works in specific version of the split branches and patches/updates that usually break fundamental sub-systems then we clearly have different definitions of what makes something good. I have Oculus too and as I've said before the immersion is great. If you like it so much maybe we'll see your reaction when that becomes broken and isn't fixed for an extended period of time which is exactly what's happened to other areas of the sim that other people enjoy.

Perhaps some people make a comparison against the ED forums whereby only positive comments are present.....but lets not forget the reason for that - its censored. SimHQ allows both positive and negative discussion and its very easy to find examples of both.
Posted By: Johnny_Redd

Re: Campaign after Campaign - ED's new focus - 09/24/16 07:11 PM

Originally Posted By: Sobek
Originally Posted By: Johnny_Redd
And all of them arent finished.


1.5.4 is finished, it's on the release channel.

Ok i stand corrected. Ill change my statement
Ill guarantee that BoS will be dx11 before we see a unified DCS world.
Posted By: cichlidfan

Re: Campaign after Campaign - ED's new focus - 09/24/16 07:12 PM

Originally Posted By: Johnny_Redd
And all of them arent finished.


Depends on your definition. The release version is finished, by definition, however, the beta and alpha versions are not finished, also by definition.

In the big picture, many things about DCS aren't finished, and though I wish they would get there a bit faster, I am glad they don't consider too many things as being finished.
Posted By: Paradaz

Paradaz - 09/24/16 07:43 PM

Originally Posted By: Sobek


1.5.4 is finished, it's on the release channel.


How can you claim 1.5.4 as a 'finished' anything regardless of what you claim is a release channel when 2.5 is going to merge the split branches?

It's like saying a patch is 'complete' just because it won't have any further revisions even though the software its patching is still far from being finished.
Posted By: Sobek

Re: Paradaz - 09/24/16 08:39 PM

Originally Posted By: Paradaz
How can you claim 1.5.4 as a 'finished' anything regardless of what you claim is a release channel when 2.5 is going to merge the split branches?


2.5 won't be a merge of 1.5 and 2.0. They aren't developing 1.5 and 2.0 separately and making 2.5 out of that (that would be extremely horrible). Rather 2.5 is their development trunk and they are merging patches back into 1.5 and 2.0 currently to keep them moving while getting 2.5 into a state they can release.

Their implementation of DX11 is stable and running on their release branch. Insofar, saying that 1C will have a DX11 implementation up and running before ED is factually incorrect. This picking at semantics for the sake of an argument is just a waste of everybodies time. Let's move on.
Posted By: - Ice

Re: Paradaz - 09/24/16 10:05 PM

Originally Posted By: cdelucia
Downloaded BMS 4.33, installed it over F4, jumped in and just from a five minute flight it's SO much better. Going to get the HOTAS setup for it. May look a bit old, but BMS did a good job and it even uses nVidia SLI (ED doesn't give F*** about this).

Really don't know why I didn't think of this sooner. Flight modelling may not be quite as detailed (still damn good though), and the graphics are a bit dated (but run liquid smooth). Overall BMS has a ton more possibility to it than anything ED will ever give us.

I was lamenting DCS as a failure of the free market, but clearly I wasn't looking at all the options out there.

Welcome to the fold, brother!

DCS wins in eye candy, but if you want a COMBAT flight simulator, well, you found it. Once the game immersion in Falcon kicks in, you'll be in a better place to see for yourself where DCS falls short.


Originally Posted By: Paul Rix
BMS certainly isn't better in VR.

I still don't get the relentless negativity that is constantly voiced here about DCS World and Eagle Dynamics. From where I'm sitting we have never had it so good. The DCS flight models are excellent (not perfect but still outstanding) , the same goes for system modeling (there are some area that could use improvement but overall outstanding), a powerful mission editor l. The sim does far more right than it does wrong and yet a vocal few here just want to rip it to pieces. sigh

It's not all about VR, Paul. Sure, we've never had it so good, but that applies to everything. VR. GPU. Monitors. HOTAS setups. It applies to BMS as well as DCS. Some of us want a COMBAT flight sim with a versatile aircraft. Some of us want a theatre of operations that feels alive. One where you need to be on your toes. One where you need to listen to AWACS pop up calls to see if that bogey/bandit is a factor to consider in your flight.

Good flight models? Fine. System models? Cool, I can flick switches. But for what end? What good is a great flight model if there's nothing to turn and burn against? What good is a master arm switch if it's pointless to flick it anyway? Sure, there's a powerful mission editor and it allows dedicated mission builders to do really beautiful things. But then the replayability is low. The amount of fun vs. the amount of work for something like that does not pay off for most users. Personally, I could not fly any mission I created, as it was like watching a movie after writing and directing the movie. A DC and a multi-role fighter can go a long way for most of these issues, but ED continues to ignore this area to the confusion of many fans and ex-fans.
Posted By: Paradaz

Paradaz - 09/24/16 10:31 PM

Originally Posted By: Sobek
2.5 won't be a merge of 1.5 and 2.0. They aren't developing 1.5 and 2.0 separately and making 2.5 out of that (that would be extremely horrible). Rather 2.5 is their development trunk and they are merging patches back into 1.5 and 2.0 currently to keep them moving while getting 2.5 into a state they can release.


It doesn't matter how you want to spin it, there are effectively 2 development branches each with their own functionality that were born before 2.5 was ever planned. The change of direction because ED were unable to deliver NTTR on time or with the stated content then meant the third development stream was born (2.5) that combines the functionality of the other two.

I also see that in another post (and that's twice now) you have confused the words 'stable' with 'complete'......yet they are not even related, and especially so in EDs case.
Posted By: Paul Rix

Re: Paradaz - 09/24/16 11:39 PM

VR is pretty important to me Ice (as you probably guessed by now wink ). It is important to the point where I really don't think I could ever go back to flying on a flat screen. Now, a dynamic campaign DCS Word would be AWESOME but it is highly unlikely to happen, so I can either throw my toys out of the cot or I can enjoy all the other positive aspects of the sim. I guess it comes down to how you look at it. Are you a glass half full or glass half empty kind of guy? I choose to have my glass at least half full. cheers
Posted By: - Ice

Re: Paradaz - 09/24/16 11:40 PM

I'm sitting here waiting for the "nothing's really ever complete" argument....
popcorn
Posted By: Johnny_Redd

Re: Paradaz - 09/24/16 11:48 PM

Originally Posted By: Paul Rix
.. and yet a vocal few here just want to rip it to pieces. sigh

The problem is DCS is already in pieces.
Posted By: - Ice

Re: Paradaz - 09/24/16 11:53 PM

Originally Posted By: Paul Rix
VR is pretty important to me Ice (as you probably guessed by now wink ). It is important to the point where I really don't think I could ever go back to flying on a flat screen. Now, a dynamic campaign DCS Word would be AWESOME but it is highly unlikely to happen, so I can either throw my toys out of the cot or I can enjoy all the other positive aspects of the sim. I guess it comes down to how you look at it. Are you a glass half full or glass half empty kind of guy? I choose to have my glass at least half full. cheers


I'm a glass half empty when it comes to VR, simply because I do a lot of cockpit work in the F-16 (and even in the A-10C) and I could not do it going back to clicking things on-screen with a mouse or whatever device. Just as VR changed your preferences and you can't go back to a flat screen now, so did physical switches and touchscreens changed my preferences.

Having said that, again, I recognize VR's use in older aircraft such as WWII or maybe even early-Vietnam era aircraft.... but then again, we go into the issue of "flight sim" vs. "COMBAT flight sim." My point here (and on my last paragraph on my last post) is that the non-DC nature of ED means you're either flying the same missions over-and-over again and therefore "you know what's coming" or you're making missions or generating missions that are generally one-offs. In other words, low replayability which is further hampered by the fact that a LOT of work needs to go into making missions (not auto-generating them!). Compare that to Falcon's DC.... start a campaign and even if you fly out of the same airbase over and over again, your next campaign won't turn out the same as the first one. Throw in different PAK priorities or fly from a different airbase, and you're "never stepping in the same river twice" sort of thing.

I do apologize for the confusion; I wasn't comparing VR vs. DC. I was simply tackling both your points regarding VR and "never had things so good" in one post without being clear that they were two different points.
Posted By: Sobek

Re: Paradaz - 09/25/16 09:48 AM

Originally Posted By: Paradaz
It doesn't matter how you want to spin it, there are effectively 2 development branches each with their own functionality that were born before 2.5 was ever planned. The change of direction because ED were unable to deliver NTTR on time or with the stated content then meant the third development stream was born (2.5) that combines the functionality of the other two.


I'm not spinning it, i'm simply applying my experience as software developer.

The way that you *think* it works would end up in a colossal clusterf****. It does not work the way you think it does, but since it never occurs to you that you might be wrong at anything, there's really no point to this discussion at all. Have a good one.
Posted By: Paradaz

Re: Paradaz - 09/25/16 10:14 AM

Originally Posted By: Sobek
The way that you *think* it works would end up in a colossal clusterf****.



You define 'would' as if everything they have done up to this point is great and attempting to simply 'merge' existing branches would be crazy! Open your eyes Sobek because you have just dropped the quote of the century....exactly how do you see ED's turning and changing of direction that has led to split development paths, separate ongoing development streams, delayed releases by years, feature creep, bodged functionality, broken functionality, unseen dependencies for 3rd parties etc etc?

The colossal clusterf**** has already happened and we've been seeing it gain momentum right in front of our own eyes for many years now. Let's not pretend for one minute that ED have got this merger under complete control. You're expecting a nice seamless transition due to the expertise, forsight and integration activities ahead that have all been meticulously planned a long time ago? We'll see unicorns jumping over colourful rainbows in our living rooms first and you know it.

Has anyone really got that amount of confidence and trust in ED. I certainly haven't and with valid reason.
Posted By: Tom_Weiss

Re: Paradaz - 09/25/16 10:52 AM

Originally Posted By: Paradaz
Originally Posted By: Sobek


1.5.4 is finished, it's on the release channel.


How can you claim 1.5.4 as a 'finished' anything regardless of what you claim is a release channel when 2.5 is going to merge the split branches?

It's like saying a patch is 'complete' just because it won't have any further revisions even though the software its patching is still far from being finished.
\

to a newcomer this must all be so confusing - 1.5, 2.0, 2.5 ...
Posted By: Sobek

Re: Paradaz - 09/25/16 01:30 PM

Originally Posted By: Paradaz
You define 'would' as if everything they have done up to this point is great and attempting to simply 'merge' existing branches would be crazy!


How do you not get this? 2.5 will not be a merge of 1.5 and 2.0. 1.5 and 2.0, no merge. Is any of this getting through to you? They don't develop features in 1.5 and 2.0 in parallel and at some point magically hope that it will fit back together. That is your ludicrous way of thinking about how things work. And yes, it is nothing less than ludicrous.

You are assuming that ED are building a car with square wheels, then proceed to tell everybody that ED are idiots because 'DAFUQ, square wheels!'. What you don't get is that they never planned to use square wheels.

You are once again off the reservation.

I don't need to have faith in ED or any of that nonsense. I still had access to their repos when they decided to release 2.0 before the Georgia terrain was ported to the new terrain format.

1.5 currently is just a stop gap, it's an old version that they have patched to keep up with the features of 2.0. Once Georgia is completely redone, they'll simply ditch the 1.5 branch and be done with it. 2.5 will be 2.0 with Georgia and what new features they can cram in 2.0 up to that point. The jump in version number is simply to denote all the work that has gone into that step.
Posted By: Paradaz

Re: Paradaz - 09/25/16 01:57 PM

I'm quite conversant with how the features are integrated and that 2.5 isn't simply a merge of the two builds....my point is quite clear and that is 1.5x and 2.0 have different functionality and the 2.5 build will obviously combine all of this - functionality is the key word here, in bold - just for you ...that's not to say 2.5 is created by taking elements of both builds and crossing fingers or using one of those builds as a start point, not sure why you insist I'm thinking like that. Perhaps it's the use of the word 'merge'.

It's largely irrelevant how ED get to the 2.5 release but one thing is for certain 1.5x and 2.0x were born before 2.5 was ever thought of as a merged build due to EDs ineptitude in the first place.

In your quote above you mention ED never planned to use square wheels? I don't think ED actually plan anything and seem to make it up on the fly because you couldn't possibly begin to explain just how illogical their processes and decision making is/are.
Posted By: Sobek

Re: Paradaz - 09/25/16 01:59 PM

Originally Posted By: Paradaz
I'm quite conversant with how the features are integrated and that 2.5 isn't simply a merge of the two builds


I'm not so sure about that, with all the goalpost moving and misnaming going on, but nevermind.

Originally Posted By: Paradaz

....my point is quite clear and that is 1.5x and 2.0 have different functionality and the 2.5 build will obviously combine all of thi - functionality is the key word here, in bold - just for you ...that's not to say 2.5 is created by taking elements of both builds and crossing fingers or using one of those builds as a start point, not sure why you insist I'm thinking like that.


Well you arrived at this after previously touting that they were going to merge 1.5 and 2.0.

The answer is still no, three times no. There is no functionality in 1.5 that they need for 2.5 that is not in 2.0.
The reason that the released version of 2.0 is sometimes behind is just the logistics of testing, nothing more.

Period.
Posted By: Johnny_Redd

Re: Paradaz - 09/25/16 02:10 PM

So what is the point of patching 1.5, a dead end, when 2.5 is the goal? Were told by many third parties and ED that some modules were not to be patched until EDGE was out the door because it was a waste of resources. isnt this exactly the same situation?
Posted By: Sobek

Re: Paradaz - 09/25/16 02:12 PM

Originally Posted By: Johnny_Redd
So what is the point of patching 1.5, a dead end, when 2.5 is the goal? Were told by many third parties and ED that some modules were not to be patched until EDGE was out the door because it was a waste of resources. isnt this exactly the same situation?


The point is that Georgia doesn't run in 2.0. If they were to ditch 1.5 now, we would "lose" Georgia until they are done with porting it to comply with how terrains work from 2.0 onwards. Essentially, people still flying in Georgia would have been stuck with whatever version number it was when 2.0 came out for potentially well over a year. No new modules with Georgia, no updates/bug fixes for existing modules. It would have been a drastic move.
Posted By: Paradaz

Re: Paradaz - 09/25/16 03:08 PM

Originally Posted By: Sobek

The answer is still no, three times no. There is no functionality in 1.5 that they need for 2.5 that is not in 2.0.



Originally Posted By: Sobek
The point is that Georgia doesn't run in 2.0



band

Porting/terrains/new engine....it's all functionality Sobek that gets incorporated into 2.5. I'm starting to think you're hung up with the word 'merge'. A word that ED actually used to describe 2.5 if I recall.
Posted By: Sobek

Re: Paradaz - 09/25/16 03:45 PM

Originally Posted By: Paradaz
Porting/terrains/new engine....it's all functionality Sobek that gets incorporated into 2.5.


Excuse me, who's spin doctoring now?

So now you have moved from 'They have to merge the two branches, so they are idiots' to 'They should have made Georgia from the getgo so it works with EDGE, they didn't ergo they are idiots'. Well first, let me tell you how glad i am that you have finally dropped the merge nonsense. Secondly, DX11 wasn't even on the drawing board when Georgia was first created. Saying ED didn't plan ahead just because they have to adapt a terrain asset that is now 8 years old to new technology (they don't make DX, they have to work with what they get dealt) is absolutely bananas.

Originally Posted By: Paradaz

I'm starting to think you're hung up with the word 'merge'.


Yes, when someone claiming to be an industry professional isn't using the correct terminology and then keeps moving goalposts to cover it up, that does get me a little worked up.

Originally Posted By: Paradaz

A word that ED actually used to describe 2.5 if I recall.


Wags isn't a software developer and he does make mistakes with regards to terminology. The difference is, he doesn't call other people idiots based on his errors and he doesn't claim to know everything.
Posted By: Cobra847

Re: Paradaz - 09/25/16 03:59 PM

Drop in for a beer next time you're in Graz, Sobek. You deserve one. smile
Posted By: Sobek

Re: Paradaz - 09/25/16 04:35 PM

Originally Posted By: Cobra847
Drop in for a beer next time you're in Graz, Sobek. You deserve one. smile


Let's make this happen. smile cheers
Posted By: Paradaz

Re: Paradaz - 09/25/16 04:42 PM

Sobek, you're on a completely different planet.....nowhere have I mentioned DX11 and making Georgia compatible with Edge but I assume you're obviously referring to the old engine and the work that needs going to incorporate this into 2.5.

It seems that you're making some sort of assumption that the way ED have gone about this with the dead-end 1.5, the isolated 2.x and the subsequent all-dancing 2.5 is the only possible way to do it. If that is the case, then it really isn't discussing any further because you're obviously seeing things the way ED do which tells its own story.

The very reason we're even having to discuss this is because of the arse over tit way ED have arrived at this junction and we all know the reason we are here today is because ED couldn't deliver NTTR on time with the features they originally stated. The build got cut down and functionality farmed out to the isolated 2.x build just so they could release 'something' which undoubtedly has given ED massive resourcing headaches that they never ever wanted. Bad planning put them in this position and that's not even up for discussion. Well, either bad planning or no planning because it's almost incomprehensible that such a small team has this amount of ongoing work....it really is no surprise that ED can't finish anything - they've had to work on 3 separate builds that ultimately end up at the same juncture come 2.5.

Originally Posted By: Sobek
Wags isn't a software developer and he does make mistakes with regards to terminology. The difference is, he doesn't call other people idiots based on his errors and he doesn't claim to know everything.


If you care to venture into the ED forums you'll see all sorts of statements and updates from various representatives of ED and not just Wags using the same merge/merger terminology. Perhaps you can go and educate their entire team about the appropriate terminology if you think it's sending out the wrong message.
Posted By: Sobek

Re: Paradaz - 09/25/16 04:48 PM

Originally Posted By: Troll
Or when in Northern Norway.


Yeah that might be a while. Beautiful country, but ridiculously expensive for us southeners. frown
Posted By: Sobek

Re: Paradaz - 09/25/16 05:28 PM

Originally Posted By: Paradaz
Sobek, you're on a completely different planet.....nowhere have I mentioned DX11 and making Georgia compatible with Edge but I assume you're obviously referring to the old engine and the work that needs going to incorporate this into 2.5.


Sorry, it's not easy to keep track of what it is you're actually ranting about, given that it changes with every odd post.

Originally Posted By: Paradaz

It seems that you're making some sort of assumption that the way ED have gone about this with the dead-end 1.5, the isolated 2.x and the subsequent all-dancing 2.5 is the only possible way to do it. If that is the case, then it really isn't discussing any further because you're obviously seeing things the way ED do which tells its own story.


That is absolutely not what i'm saying.

I do wonder however what you would have done. For all the namecalling you do, you offer no alternatives AT ALL. It's all so easy pointing fingers. The situation is not ideal, no questions asked. But what would YOU have done?

Originally Posted By: Paradaz

Bad planning put them in this position and that's not even up for discussion.


Is it not?

You're telling me you've never had a project run over projected time or budget? What business are you in? Making teaching software for first graders?

It doesn't really matter, because unless you work for Microsoft or Google, chances are high that your project is nowhere near the complexity level of DCS.

Originally Posted By: Paradaz

Originally Posted By: Sobek
Wags isn't a software developer and he does make mistakes with regards to terminology. The difference is, he doesn't call other people idiots based on his errors and he doesn't claim to know everything.


If you care to venture into the ED forums you'll see all sorts of statements and updates from various representatives of ED and not just Wags using the same merge/merger terminology. Perhaps you can go and educate their entire team about the appropriate terminology if you think it's sending out the wrong message.


Point taken, they should be more precise with their terminology.
Posted By: Paradaz

Re: Paradaz - 09/25/16 05:45 PM

Originally Posted By: Sobek

That is absolutely not what i'm saying.

I do wonder however what you would have done. For all the namecalling you do, you offer no alternatives AT ALL. It's all so easy pointing fingers. The situation is not ideal, no questions asked. But what would YOU have done?


It's irrelevant what I would have done because desktop simulation is not my day-job unlike ED. What is the point in me offering options because ED aren't going to listen and nor would I expect them to. Given that they haven't learned from their own mistakes why would they listen to anyone else? One thing is for sure, their planning should have been much better and definitely taken into account obsolescence and the potential for a Direct X engine upgrade at some point down the line. Granted, there are many unknowns but that's what your risk budget is for....I'm not even sure that ED definitely had the budget or ideas to create the required budget to see this project through given the way they go about the alphas/betas/early access and now campaigns to generate funds to see projects through....and even then don't actually see projects through anyway.


Originally Posted By: Sobek
It doesn't really matter, because unless you work for Microsoft or Google, chances are high that your project is nowhere near the complexity level of DCS.


I don't normally talk about my day job because again, within SimHQ it's irrelevant, however I work for one of the world's largest defence companies and am an technical lead/integration manager for weapons and systems interfaces on naval platforms. I don't really need to add anything to that about complexity levels but I can assure you if my projects were delayed like EDs I'd have been out of a job years ago.

Posted By: Sobek

Re: Paradaz - 09/25/16 07:00 PM

Originally Posted By: Paradaz

I don't normally talk about my day job because again, within SimHQ it's irrelevant, however I work for one of the world's largest defence companies and am an technical lead/integration manager for weapons and systems interfaces on naval platforms. I don't really need to add anything to that about complexity levels but I can assure you if my projects were delayed like EDs I'd have been out of a job years ago.


The difference is that if a military project is important enough, the state will just through a bunch of money at it to see it happen, and even then high risk projects still often enough are delayed. Look at the F22/F35/A400 etc. I'm sure people could come up with a bunch of other high profile projects that neither met budget nor time restrictions. Are all those PMs idiots?
Posted By: Zoomie13

Re: Paradaz - 09/25/16 07:07 PM

Originally Posted By: Paradaz

I don't normally talk about my day job because again, within SimHQ it's irrelevant, however I work for one of the world's largest defence companies and am an technical lead/integration manager for weapons and systems interfaces on naval platforms. I don't really need to add anything to that about complexity levels but I can assure you if my projects were delayed like EDs I'd have been out of a job years ago.

You seem to have a lot of time on your hands for "#%&*$#-posting": doesn't seem like your job's that hard..
...As long as we're all allowed to post our "opinions" around here...
Posted By: Paradaz

Re: Paradaz - 09/25/16 07:17 PM

Absolutely, I've never had a go at anyone for posting their opinion...that's exactly what a forum is for.

As for my 3070 ish posts over 13 and a half years I just about get time to average 1.5 posts per day so no need to worry about that or whether my day-job is hard or otherwise especially as I don't visit or post on SimHQ during my working day. I don't spend that time attempting to insult other forum users though unlike yourself.

Sobek, do you care to find any of my quotes where I call a PM or anyone else an 'idiot'? Not once have I gone down that route. I have said the ED have been inept and incompetent in certain areas though, and if you want validation of that then look at the announcements, delays and failures - I think that's a perfectly valid description.

No company regardless of size, workload or funding should ever start a project if it's not financially feasible. That's day 1, week 1 so not sure why you're suddenly focusing on budget. ED may not have government level funding, but to that end then they wouldn't want to announce something will be ready in 3 years when 5 is a realistic estimate. That should be taken into account so the level of backing at project start shouldn't be any caveat in failing to meet deadlines later in the timeline.
Posted By: cichlidfan

Re: Paradaz - 09/25/16 07:27 PM

Originally Posted By: Sobek
The difference is that if a military project is important enough, the state will just through a bunch of money at it to see it happen, and even then high risk projects still often enough are delayed. Look at the F22/F35/A400 etc. I'm sure people could come up with a bunch of other high profile projects that neither met budget nor time restrictions. Are all those PMs idiots?


I once worked on a DOD project that ended up being extremely late and massively over the original budget estimate. We were also doing something that nobody had done before. It, however, was a cost-plus-fixed-fee contract so it wasn't like my company was soaking the customer. In the end, the project was a complete success all the way through deployment, and a very satisfactory five or six years for all involved.

I must admit, that I am sure the customer knew from day one that there was no way we could do the job for the money, and time, originally estimated. However, they did know that we could do the job.

As for high profile, it would depend on where you worked. This project was not and, most likely, will never be in the 'public eye' but then that is true of many DOD and military projects.
Posted By: - Ice

Re: Paradaz - 09/25/16 07:39 PM

Wow, this thread sure has gained a bit of momentum....

Sobek, here's a serious question for you and I hope you answer truthfully:
As a person who does not do programming, how would you explain to me that ED working on 1.5xxx and 2.0 and an eventual 2.5, how is working on all two/three "projects" a good way of moving forward considering the limited resources ED has? In other words, why not simply stop something as it will be "dead" soon and focus on getting the "new thing" out the door quicker?
Posted By: Sobek

Re: Paradaz - 09/25/16 07:55 PM

Originally Posted By: Paradaz

Sobek, do you care to find any of my quotes where I call a PM or anyone else an 'idiot'? Not once have I gone down that route.


Fair enough, my bad. I mixed you up with somebody else. As you say you called them incompetent and unable to learn from their mistakes.
Posted By: Sobek

Re: Paradaz - 09/25/16 08:22 PM

Originally Posted By: - Ice
Wow, this thread sure has gained a bit of momentum....

Sobek, here's a serious question for you and I hope you answer truthfully:
As a person who does not do programming, how would you explain to me that ED working on 1.5xxx and 2.0 and an eventual 2.5, how is working on all two/three "projects" a good way of moving forward considering the limited resources ED has? In other words, why not simply stop something as it will be "dead" soon and focus on getting the "new thing" out the door quicker?


I already somewhat answered that somewhere else.

The choice is between stretching yourself thinner but still giving customers of all modules the opportunity to utilize the Georgia map or leaving Georgia be and patching the new modules just into 2.0+.

What you need to consider is the following: The reason for the multiple versions we have right now is the interface to the terrain, that is, how the graphics engine gets the data it needs for rendering terrain features (textures, elevation mesh, etc.).

If you're developing something that works with both the old and new terrain interfaces or just doesn't depend on the terrain interface at all, you can basically just throw it into the 1.5 branch and it should work, so it's not too bad. The stuff where this doesn't work, they are probably going to hold back until they can ditch 1.5. The way i see it, what they are doing right now mostly creates overhead in testing, not so much in development, but i don't know the source code, so take that with a grain of salt.

What i can say with absolute certainty ED is not doing is developing three completely different versions. They develop one version (2.5) and invest some additional work into backporting some of that development work into 1.5.
Posted By: - Ice

Re: Paradaz - 09/25/16 10:13 PM

Do you mean this?
Originally Posted By: Sobek
The point is that Georgia doesn't run in 2.0. If they were to ditch 1.5 now, we would "lose" Georgia until they are done with porting it to comply with how terrains work from 2.0 onwards. Essentially, people still flying in Georgia would have been stuck with whatever version number it was when 2.0 came out for potentially well over a year. No new modules with Georgia, no updates/bug fixes for existing modules. It would have been a drastic move.


I'm not quite sure you're answering my question here. You're telling me WHY you think ED is doing 1.5xxx/2.0/2.5, but I'm asking why their current approach (doing 1.5xxx/2.0/2.5) is a good idea? Why are they doing three things? Sure, not completely different versions, but still, three things. Why is focusing on ONE thing, in this case 2.5, not a good idea? Is there something that a developer or programmer sees in this framework that is not obvious to an outsider?
Posted By: cichlidfan

Re: Paradaz - 09/25/16 11:06 PM

IMHO, ED's decision to maintain multiple version was likely based on the assumption that users would get too frustrated with the delay in both new content and progress in general. I doubt it was the most cost effective solution in terms of pure man hours, however, by doing it this way, they may well have been able to release paid content that otherwise would not have provided financial return until some time in the future.

The utility bills and the payroll are due now and IOU's don't cut it with some people.

Am I happy about it? Not really, but it is what it is and that is only a game that I try to enjoy.

A KSP update once ruined a year of exploration and left many kerbals stranded in outer space. That ticked me off more than many things about DCS's progress. wink
Posted By: Jedi Master

Re: Paradaz - 09/26/16 01:50 PM

On the flipside, I'm sure if DCSW had a dynamic campaign that could run for weeks or months people WOULD be upset if an update invalidated the save and made you start over again.

I do remember that happening in F4, Il-2, and several other sims with DC's.

Heh, I just realized they could call it DCS: DCS. Digital Combat Sim Dynamic Campaign System. Wouldn't that be nice and confusing? smile



The Jedi Master
Posted By: bkthunder

Re: Paradaz - 09/27/16 07:18 AM

Originally Posted By: Jedi Master


Heh, I just realized they could call it DCS: DCS. Digital Combat Sim Dynamic Campaign System. Wouldn't that be nice and confusing? smile



The Jedi Master


LOL!

Hang on, would that be DCS:DCS 1.5 open beta, or 2.0 Alpha? Or maybe 2.5 early access??
Posted By: Frederf

Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus - 09/27/16 08:03 PM

I'll consider buying a campaign after flying a demo mission or two or a reliable description from someone's opinion I respect.
Posted By: Paradaz

Paradaz - 10/01/16 06:50 AM

Just to summarise this thread of which the first post was created on March 16th this year. In approximately 6.5 months there have been something like 8 payware campaigns released and next to nothing in terms of progress memntioned on the ED newsletters.

My original post is copied below and I think we can clearly see my concerns were true and that its also going to be a good sized task to ensure that all the campaigns released in the last 7 months are going to require some significant work and testing to ensure they are fully compatible with a milestone DCS release.

I wonder if ED will actually meet their intended release of the 2.5 build this year! I have little faith.


Originally Posted By: Paradaz on 18th March 2016



I guess I have my answer, so it seems the latest newsletter which I just received is promoting yet another new campaign....and only a new campaign. A new DCS World update that features nothing other than support for a new payware campaign? How's about putting more effort into the unfinished content where customer funds have returned nothing more than the beta status? Campaigns may be good....however not at the expense of the focus that is required for DCS World.

I knew a quick profit would be a head turner.....so this looks to be yet another direction change for ED. I'm sure we'll be seeing campaign after campaign and the associated 'updates' that also promote the bundle sales too. I suppose it negates any requirement for a dynamic campaign!

How's about getting the missions into the Nevada branch for starters or is that at the back of the queue because no funds are generated?
Posted By: - Ice

Re: Paradaz - 10/01/16 08:27 AM

Originally Posted By: Paradaz
I wonder if ED will actually meet their intended release of the 2.5 build this year! I have little faith.

Somebody did say ED may be following the tax year so we technically have until March 2017 to see 2.5 released "this year." biggrin


Originally Posted By: Troll
So, how much has these campaigns delayed the development of DCS World?

We may never know how much it has affected DCSW. We may not even know if these "distractions" have significantly affected ED's bottom line.

However, for a company that already cannot meet the deadlines THEY set upon THEMSELVES, having any "distraction" cannot be seen as a good thing in any way.
Posted By: Tom_Weiss

Re: Paradaz - 10/01/16 02:46 PM

any news on the Red Sea Map ?



biggrin
Posted By: Paradaz

Paradaz - 10/01/16 03:25 PM

Originally Posted By: Troll

So, how much has these campaigns delayed the development of DCS World?


I've no idea, your sarcasm suggests that you think development hasn't been affected....so perhaps you can put my concerns to bed by explaining as much as you can about the progress and release of 2.5 by the end of the year.

Part of my concern involves the absolute lack of any substantial information in the newsletters which have previously been used to communicate this sort of info.
Posted By: Paradaz

Paradaz - 10/02/16 03:13 PM

Bold statements and chest pounding? You'll find that it's the sharing of an opinion.

Your alternative being not to discuss opinions and only to talk about known facts! Perhaps SimHQ should be closed down then as its a forum and you're obviously having issues understanding what happens within.

My comment about being correct regards the concern of more and more campaigns appearing without any significant DCS progress in the same timeline. You obviously know a lot more about 2.5 development than anyone else because there has been next to no information released. Strange that ED are happy to release information about campaign after campaign though......
Posted By: - Ice

Re: Paradaz - 10/02/16 05:59 PM

Originally Posted By: Troll
And why on earth some people want to try to control this, from the sidelines, is just as strange to me as why people involve themselves in how a team of eleven rolling windbag chasing millionaires is run.

I rofl with regards to your football comment! thumbsup

However, a well-run football team will only really affect THEM, all the fans get is pride and bragging rights. A well-run software developer will affect them (the devs) **AND** the fans.



Originally Posted By: Troll
And your chest punding comment about being right all along suggests you actually know that development has been affected, which is impossible to know, since we can't test the hypothesis.

Except that common sense will tell us that getting distracted only results in tasks taking longer. Can you cite examples of how "doing something else" leads to shorter development times or better products?



Originally Posted By: Troll
We don't know anything about the development process of DCS, other than what ED tells us. Are all the coders and artists at ED involved in the development 100%, all the time? Or do some of them have downtime, every now and then, that can be utilized for extracurricular activities..? I don't know. You don't know. So why bother about it? Why do you involve yourself with this? You can't control it. You know nothing about it.

What we do know is that they are struggling enough to meet their deadlines as it is. Their development process could be "easy as pie" or the complete opposite, they may have too much downtime for extracurricular activities or they could have devs awake for 3 days at a time, all plastered with nicotine patches. We don't know. But what we do know is that they have a very, very good record of missing their own deadlines, so evidence of more distractions cannot be a good thing.

While we may not be able to affect how ED is run by our ramblings and chest pounding, we are still free to say "I told you so!" and "Oh man, not again!" Just as a movie-goer is free to scream "Don't go in there!" or "Watch out behind you!" even though it will not affect the outcome of the movie in any way. biggrin

I do wonder how many people wish they COULD control how ED does things though... right
Posted By: - Ice

Re: Paradaz - 10/02/16 07:53 PM

Originally Posted By: Troll
All I know is that it's not unheard of to miss deadlines in the software business wink

Granted, deadlines will be missed in software business or in other endeavors, but here's the catch --- "to a degree."

How many deadlines has ED missed? How many deadlines has ED actually hit? Getting a reputation for missing deadlines does not happen overnight, and does not happen for just missing one or two deadlines.


Originally Posted By: Troll
As for "doing something else" may lead to better products... Yes! Many individuals as well as coaches and business leaders use this as a coaching principle. Focusing too hard on one project may lead to fixation and stagnation.

Sure, you raise valid points, but that is taking into consideration "other individuals." Take this in the context of ED and their past performance and you'll see how "doing something else" does not necessarily lead to better products. They can't hit their targets just doing what they're doing so "doing something else" cannot be seen in good light.
Posted By: - Ice

Re: Paradaz - 10/02/16 08:51 PM

Even Hitler understood that delays weren't good! mycomputer


linky
Posted By: Sobek

Re: Paradaz - 10/02/16 09:11 PM

Originally Posted By: - Ice
How many deadlines has ED missed?


You may not agree with EDs definition of a deadline, but so far i know of one.

What you think of when you say deadline they call an estimate, and they are very vocal about the possibility that it might not be accurate.
Posted By: leaf_on_the_wind

Re: Paradaz - 10/02/16 09:26 PM

lol yeah call it an "estimate"

example if ED was a plumber

me: How much would this re-plumbing a sink job cost?
ED: I "estimate" it would cost $200 and take 1 day to complete

............... 6 months later after plumber working on it every day ..... still not complete

............... 3 years later finally completed the job, Bill comes in at $20,000

Thats how realistic their "estimates" are
Posted By: Paradaz

Re: Paradaz - 10/02/16 09:29 PM

There will be absolutely no excuse for missing 2.5 by the end of the year........especially as what they are providing is actually a product that was supposed to be released many years ago and has had at least 2 new release target dates missed since the original target date was ever mentioned.

The release of 2.5 by the end of the year is clearly not an 'estimate' and has been published many times by ED in various newsletters, forum posts and their facebook page that it will be released in 2016...however I'm not convinced ED know what an estimate is because anything they have been involved with that requires one has been woefully underestimated to the point that only ineptitude and incompetence can describe how far out they are.

There is 'not being accurate' and 'taking the p1ss to the point of being farcical. Here's a question for you Sobek......for all ED's 'estimates', what's the closest they've ever been to an intended release date? I hope they're better with their financial estimates because if they're anything like their scheduling then it wont be long before they fold.
Posted By: - Ice

Re: Paradaz - 10/02/16 09:38 PM

Originally Posted By: Sobek
You may not agree with EDs definition of a deadline, but so far i know of one.

What you think of when you say deadline they call an estimate, and they are very vocal about the possibility that it might not be accurate.

Hahahahaha!! Are you serious?? Really?

Okay, let me dig up an old back-and-forth I had with zaelu regarding deadlines...

Originally Posted By: - Ice

Originally Posted By: zaelu
Also... ED stopped giving dead lines a good while ago.

Really?

DCS newsletter January 29
Quote:
In parallel we continue to work on the F/A-18C Hornet. We are currently working on the cockpit and setting up its functionality. Later in 2016 we plan to release the Hornet as an "Early Access" product that will allow you to participate in early testing.

In the first half of 2016, several new 3rd party aircraft modules will also be launched. These include the F-5E Tiger II by Belsimtek, the SA342 Gazelle by Polychop Simulations, and the AJS-37 Viggen by Leatherneck Simulations.

We see 2016 as a big year for aircraft carrier operations as we plan to release both Nimitz-class aircraft carrier and Kuznetsov-class aircraft carrier modules.


DCS newsletter August 19
Quote:
DCS World 2.5 is still on track to be available in 2016.


Sounds like deadlines to me! Let's see.... just a little less than 4 months to go for 2.5 and the Hornet. Anyone holding their breath?



Okay, so we're now shifting the goalposts from "ED did not announce deadlines" to "ED's definition of 'deadline' is different from the rest of the English-speaking world."

So.... two questions for you, Sobek:
1. Where exactly can one get "ED's definition of a deadline"??
2. Where in those newsletters have they been "very vocal about the possibility that it might not be accurate"??

Quoting "later" and "in the first half" is an estimate in itself and they've given themselves quite a big leeway just quoting a year, AN ENTIRE YEAR!!! for their projections. Anyone holding their breath that ED makes their projections?
Posted By: Sobek

Re: Paradaz - 10/02/16 09:59 PM

Originally Posted By: - Ice
Okay, so we're now shifting the goalposts from "ED did not announce deadlines" to "ED's definition of 'deadline' is different from the rest of the English-speaking world."


No.

I'm not shifting any goalpost, i just joined this line of discussion. My goalposts remain firm where they are.

Originally Posted By: - Ice

So.... two questions for you, Sobek:
1. Where exactly can one get "ED's definition of a deadline"??


Basically when they announce a fixed date when the pre-purchase opens.

Originally Posted By: - Ice

2. Where in those newsletters have they been "very vocal about the possibility that it might not be accurate"??


They do tend to state that periodically.

Example:

Originally Posted By: Wags

Konichiwa everyone,

We hear you and understand your wish for more news about the Hornet project. Virtually all the work is in code at this time, but I can say that work continues and the electrical, hydraulic, and gear systems are all almost complete. The next step will be to tie these systems into the cockpit. Other systems have been tied to the cockpit and the HUD symbology integration is on-going. Once that task is complete, we can begin work on the flight model prototype.

The cockpit is done though and includes functionality for JHMCS. What weapon systems will be included in the Early Access is TBD.

As mentioned earlier in the year, it’s our hope to release the Hornet into early access by the end of the year. However, that is only a best estimation at the time and many things can alter this. Only a date announced with the start of a pre-purchase should be taken as a date you can bank on. We are quite accurate with such dates.

When there is more information to pass along on this project, we will do so.

Thanks



Originally Posted By: - Ice

Quoting "later" and "in the first half" is an estimate in itself and they've given themselves quite a big leeway just quoting a year, AN ENTIRE YEAR!!! for their projections. Anyone holding their breath that ED makes their projections?


So? What's your point? Is this anything unusual in the domain of computer games? AAA titles don't announce release dates either until they are close to release.

And so what if they don't make their projections? I don't understand what the fuzz is about. You make it sound as if your life depended on ED releasing the Hornet this year.

I can understand people being somewhat indignant when money has changed hands like with the WWII side of things, but i don't think that is actually your point of contention.
Posted By: cichlidfan

Re: Paradaz - 10/02/16 10:47 PM

Personally, I am not thrilled with the progress on DCS so far.

However, I can not help but be surprised that some people are getting wound so tight over something that they can not do a single thing about.

Life is just too damn short to sweat the small stuff.

EDIT: If DCS isn't small stuff, in your mind, I might suggest getting out more. wink
Posted By: ricnunes

Re: Paradaz - 10/03/16 11:01 AM

Originally Posted By: Sobek


... AAA titles don't announce release dates either until they are close to release.




Maybe and I repeat MAYBE, ED should start doing the same, eh?


The problem with ED is that they seem to be unable to learn anything from their mistakes! Now, why is that?
- Is it because they have the perception that they own the "monopoly" of combat flight sims and as such they simply don't care?
- Is it because (and in tandem with the point above) it's more profitable to spend more resources to make "campaign DLCs" than to spend these same resources fixing the actual game even because the "fans" are always with ED no matter what and as such ED has nothing to lose?
- Is because of pure and sheer incompetence?
- Too many projects with little resources, namely human resources (or resuming complete loss of focus)?

Anyway, I believe that if ED continues with this same track than I have very few doubts that it will bankrupt/go out of business rather soon! And why do I say this? Because if any other company/business followed the same "business strategy" as ED it would already have gone bankrupt/out of business by now.

ED is enjoying a sort of "state of grace" due to the support of the fan(atics?) but this is situation that won't last forever if nothing changes with the ED strategy, that is.

And that's all I have to say about the subject for now.
Posted By: Jedi Master

Re: Paradaz - 10/03/16 01:46 PM

Destroy their contracts business. Get every one of those customers to cut ED off permanently.

THEN we will see them work without distraction on DCS World. Not before.

Until that time, they're going to work on DCS World "As Time Permits".



Mystery solved.

I'll take my medal and prize money now.




The Jedi Master
Posted By: GrayGhost

Re: Paradaz - 10/03/16 02:54 PM

Originally Posted By: Troll
Absolutely! But we don't know how much faster, if at all, the development of DCS would be, if they didn't release campaigns and modules. So what's the point of making a big deal out of this?


It would be zero faster, and zero slower. The people who create the campaigns don't create code or art.
Posted By: GrayGhost

Re: Paradaz - 10/03/16 02:54 PM

They work on DCSW all the time - I get updates every day. I'll keep that prize money wink

Originally Posted By: Jedi Master
Destroy their contracts business. Get every one of those customers to cut ED off permanently.

THEN we will see them work without distraction on DCS World. Not before.

Until that time, they're going to work on DCS World "As Time Permits".



Mystery solved.

I'll take my medal and prize money now.
Posted By: Sobek

Re: Paradaz - 10/03/16 06:31 PM

Originally Posted By: Troll

But, I would like to see even more content


For a glimpse i thought you wrote 'contempt'. Time for the ophtalmologist.
Posted By: ricnunes

Re: Paradaz - 10/03/16 10:28 PM

Originally Posted By: Jedi Master
Destroy their contracts business. Get every one of those customers to cut ED off permanently.

THEN we will see them work without distraction on DCS World. Not before.

Until that time, they're going to work on DCS World "As Time Permits".





From my part I'm already doing something along those lines. For example, ED won't see a "dime" from my part on Campaign DLCs.
Posted By: - Ice

Re: Paradaz - 10/03/16 11:05 PM

Originally Posted By: Sobek
No.

I'm not shifting any goalpost, i just joined this line of discussion. My goalposts remain firm where they are.

Apologies for that... I did not mean YOU personally but rather "the other side" that insist on making excuses for ED.


Originally Posted By: Sobek
Originally Posted By: - Ice

So.... two questions for you, Sobek:
1. Where exactly can one get "ED's definition of a deadline"??


Basically when they announce a fixed date when the pre-purchase opens.

Then maybe they should shut up about dates until pre-purchase opens, huh?


Originally Posted By: Sobek
Originally Posted By: - Ice

2. Where in those newsletters have they been "very vocal about the possibility that it might not be accurate"??


They do tend to state that periodically.

Example:

Date of this newsletter? Also, giving a deadline on one newsletter then issuing another one saying "oh, you shouldn't believe anything we say until pre-purchase" only makes them look worse! LOL! We "hope"?? How about you (ED) keep your mouth shut until you can stand by what comes out of it, huh?


Originally Posted By: Sobek
So? What's your point? Is this anything unusual in the domain of computer games? AAA titles don't announce release dates either until they are close to release.

My point is that ED cannot even make the deadlines they set upon themselves. Some AAA titles don't announce release dates until it's closer to release. ED should learn from this, instead of making a statement then retracting it later on. Just because some AAA titles miss their release dates does not excuse ED either; they're only in the same boat.


Originally Posted By: Sobek
And so what if they don't make their projections? I don't understand what the fuzz is about. You make it sound as if your life depended on ED releasing the Hornet this year.

Oh no, not at all. Just pointing out their incompetence at meeting their own deadlines.


Originally Posted By: Troll
But we don't know how much faster, if at all, the development of DCS would be, if they didn't release campaigns and modules.

We don't know how much slower either!


Originally Posted By: Troll
ED will run their business the way they see fit.

They are doing exactly that so far, and what do we have to show for it?


Originally Posted By: Troll
Maybe they need the money from a few quick sales, for all I know. Don't think so, but I really don't know. But if that would be the case, making and selling some campaigns and modules would give us a releasedate of 2.5 indefinately sooner. smile

Again.... why release 10 products that will make you small profit if you can release 2 products that will make you bigger profit? Especially when there is a strong history of having to "fix" the 10 products every now and again, resulting in more work for that small profit.


Originally Posted By: Troll
A comparison to my line of business. If my flight is delayed, I rarely know for how long it will be delayed. But the passengers are always eager for information about the delay, even if it's just to hear we'll be back with new info at XX:ZZ hrs. Doesn't help them much. There's nothing they, or I, can do about it. But the information, if only that we still don't know, is important to them. I find it fascinating... smile

It's the honesty and concern for your passengers that is important to them.

Just as it is important for us that ED be concerned about keeping us updated and be honest enough regarding issues that arise. Unfortunately, this seems to be a very challenging task for them.


Originally Posted By: GrayGhost
It would be zero faster, and zero slower. The people who create the campaigns don't create code or art.

Then why are they still employed? What exactly was the need for the A-10C AATQC now, 5-6 years after the game was released? What is the need for other A-10C, Sabre, P-51D, etc. campaigns XX years after the airframe has been released? To give these people something to do? I thought the main defense against a dynamic campaign was because DCS was supposed to be a sandbox simulator...

Why continue employing people whose skillset you do not need? Why not hire people with the skills you need especially knowing you're close to deadline or even knowing that you WON'T make the deadline? If the cause for delays is code or art, then get more coders or artists.... not release more campaigns.... that will need fixing once the coders/artists are finished with their work.


Originally Posted By: Troll
That sounds sensible to me... But some people argue that the creation, and sale, of the campaigns somehow distract ED in such a degree that development of DCS is hindered. I wouldn't think so, but I don't know.
Either way, I can't control how ED spends their resources or how they run their business, and I don't fret over it.

I just enjoy what I have got, instead of complaining about what's missing.

But, I would like to see even more content (maps, modules, missions and campaigns) being produced in an even faster pace, like everybody else wink

Some of us are just more vocal over the pace ED is making, or the direction ED is taking. smile

We fully realize we can't control how ED spends their resources, but that doesn't mean we can't nitpick it to death.
We fully realize we can't control ED forums whack-a-mole ban-hammer, but that doesn't mean we can't nitpick it to death.
Unfortunately, discussing these things means ED does not come out in good light at all.
Posted By: - Ice

Re: Paradaz - 10/03/16 11:09 PM

Originally Posted By: ricnunes
From my part I'm already doing something along those lines. For example, ED won't see a "dime" from my part on Campaign DLCs.

Oh yeah, I'm voting with my wallet. I've given them my "support" when I bought DCS BS2, but that's it. Until they look like they know what they're doing, ED won't see a dime from me.

At least until they release the Hornet and/or Tomcat. The inner "Ice-Man" in me demands I buzz the tower and do carrier qualifications once those modules are out. Yes, everyone has a price, and this is mine.
tomcat
Posted By: cichlidfan

Re: Paradaz - 10/03/16 11:36 PM

Originally Posted By: - Ice
At least until they release the Hornet and/or Tomcat. The inner "Ice-Man" in me demands I buzz the tower and do carrier qualifications once those modules are out. Yes, everyone has a price, and this is mine.


So once those modules are out, your 'moral' stand on ED's performance will be discarded. Very nice.
Posted By: ST0RM

Re: Paradaz - 10/04/16 03:24 PM

Originally Posted By: Troll

And that's because of focusing on the negative. There are negatives, don't get me wrong. But there are also positives, but these don't get nearly the same focus...


The positive: DSCW is free (Su-25T and TF-51)
The negative: Other paid modules, once purchased, dont get timely attention

The positive: They've created a large fan-base for a pretty good sim
The negative: It's taken 15+ years to do what others have done in far less time

The positive: DSCW looks great and has some amazing capabilities
The negative: It's sterile, has huge gaps in planesets and many basic functions simply dont work

Just a few off the top of my head. In the end, ED's focus will always be on it's Gov contracts first. I truly believe that if they were more honest about that, it would relieve some of the frustration. They're giving release forecasts that people want to believe in, but often cant make. Then back-pedaling. I get that it is to keep interest fresh with the sim. But as can be seen, it's turning the more hardcore guys away.

-Jeff
Posted By: Sobek

Re: Paradaz - 10/04/16 05:34 PM

Originally Posted By: ST0RM

The negative: It's taken 15+ years to do what others have done in far less time


Who would that be?
Posted By: HomeFries

Re: Paradaz - 10/04/16 05:47 PM

Originally Posted By: Sobek
Originally Posted By: ST0RM

The negative: It's taken 15+ years to do what others have done in far less time


Who would that be?

One could argue that Falcon 4.0 pulled this off. While they only released one aircraft, the system was designed to be modular (reportedly Microprose was planning the F-15E), and Spectrum Holobyte had pulled it off with Falcon 3.0 (F-16/MiG-29/F-18 and 7 theaters).

Of course, people also tend to look at the history of Falcon 4.0 with rose colored glasses. Many don't remember that Falcon 4.0 was virtually unplayable at release, and that the patches that were released often broke the game more than they fixed it (even more than DCS patches sometimes break things in missions). It wasn't until 1.08 was released a year later that Falcon 4.0 was considered stable, and even then the campaign engine, while groundbreaking, was still buggy. It wasn't until Allied Force that I could run a campaign and not have to pray that my results wouldn't be lost in a CTD exiting the mission.

Still, Falcon 4.0 created a high fidelity flight sim and an integrated dynamic campaign engine in 5.5 years. Unfortunately the effort also bankrupted Microprose/Spec Holobyte and effectively took Hasbro out of the videogame business.
Posted By: cichlidfan

Re: Paradaz - 10/04/16 06:18 PM

Originally Posted By: HomeFries
Still, Falcon 4.0 created a high fidelity flight sim and an integrated dynamic campaign engine in 5.5 years. Unfortunately the effort also bankrupted Microprose/Spec Holobyte and effectively took Hasbro out of the videogame business.


There lies the crux of the biscuit.

They did it, but it caused the company to collapse. If those are the options, I will stick with what we have even with the issues that come with it.
Posted By: ST0RM

Re: Paradaz - 10/04/16 06:29 PM

@Sobek

Thirdwire. Despite it not being hardcore, it had a huge fan following. It too had it's hickups, but it was open to allow the 3rd parties to keep it alive.

EAW. Another classic that was a huge hit.

Janes series...

And none of these took 15 years to reach that.

@Troll I'm relatively happy with it, but am on a self-imposed break. Letting things settle down a bit and will see where it's headed.
Posted By: Paradaz

Paradaz - 10/04/16 07:05 PM

Out of interest Troll what modules do you own and did you pay into the kickstarter?

You may have the same base simulator but I'm also wondering what you've invested into and whether ED provided a product for everything you've already paid for? I suspect that you don't have the same software as everyone else at all. You may well be happy with unfinished software but others aren't.

Also, going off one of your previous posts you seem to have the attitude of 'you can't do anything about it so no point in complaining'. Just imagine if everyone had that attitude! I can't imagine how complacent ED would be. Given that one function of their own message boards is designed to capture bugs with a specific process in place in order to report them then we can safely say that the customer base clearly does have input and it is worth making some noise.

You'll also find that many people discussing negative points on SimHQ have gripes about ED not carrying out bug fixes in a timely manner or other areas which can't be discussed on ED's message boards due to their censorship policy.

ED clearly don't need to listen to anyone else and they're the perfect software company given that they don't think they can improve at all and keep making the same decisions and actions over and over again. It's their party and they can do what they want but you won't find many people (if any) that don't think ED can make some significant improvements.
Posted By: cichlidfan

Re: Paradaz - 10/04/16 07:14 PM

Originally Posted By: Paradaz
Given that one function of their own message boards is designed to capture bugs with a specific process in place in order to report them then we can safely say that the customer base clearly does have input and it is worth making some noise.


Complaining, about missed deadlines, for example, does not constitute a bug report.
Posted By: - Ice

Re: Paradaz - 10/04/16 07:45 PM

Originally Posted By: cichlidfan
Originally Posted By: - Ice
At least until they release the Hornet and/or Tomcat. The inner "Ice-Man" in me demands I buzz the tower and do carrier qualifications once those modules are out. Yes, everyone has a price, and this is mine.


So once those modules are out, your 'moral' stand on ED's performance will be discarded. Very nice.

Oh, no, no, no, no, NO! My morals will still be there.... just slightly tinged biggrin biggrin biggrin


Originally Posted By: Troll
Originally Posted By: - Ice
It's the honesty and concern for your passengers that is important to them.

Yes, of course, but my point is that I'm not more honest if I keep telling them that nothing has changed since last time...
It's the need for information, even if there's nothing new to report, that is so important to many.

So it's not really the information then, but rather the concern and "feeling of importance" that they get knowing their pilot is keeping them up-to-date on what's happening, even if "nothing's happening."


Originally Posted By: Troll
Originally Posted By: - Ice
Why continue employing people whose skillset you do not need?

Are they employed? Seems to me that most campaigns are designed by outsiders.

And nobody from ED tests these campaigns to meet a certain minimum standard?


Originally Posted By: Troll
Originally Posted By: - Ice
Unfortunately, discussing these things means ED does not come out in good light at all.

And that's because of focusing on the negative. There are negatives, don't get me wrong. But there are also positives, but these don't get nearly the same focus...

How many times do people in your field discuss the 98% of good landings? How many times do people in your field discuss the latest belly-up or botched landings? I rest my case.


Originally Posted By: Troll
Yet I have exactly the same software like everybody else, and I'm not the least frustrated...

Sure, there are broken features and bugs in DCS. I see them too. Development could be more streamlined and productive. Still no frustration here. DCS is still entertaining in its current state.

It's a mindset.

Mindset. Expectations.

Is it wrong to expect a company that has been around for XX years to at least know how to do a job estimate? Is it wrong to expect a company to show direction and focus with regards to it's projects? Is it wrong to expect products to be finished and bugs to be squashed?


Originally Posted By: HomeFries
Of course, people also tend to look at the history of Falcon 4.0 with rose colored glasses. Many don't remember that Falcon 4.0 was virtually unplayable at release, and that the patches that were released often broke the game more than they fixed it (even more than DCS patches sometimes break things in missions). It wasn't until 1.08 was released a year later that Falcon 4.0 was considered stable, and even then the campaign engine, while groundbreaking, was still buggy. It wasn't until Allied Force that I could run a campaign and not have to pray that my results wouldn't be lost in a CTD exiting the mission.

I am not that well versed with Falcon 4.0's history, but what was the gap between Falcon 4.0 and Allied Force?

To be fair, I'm sure people are still finding "bugs" with the current version of BMS ("it's not a bug, it's a feature!!")...


Originally Posted By: HomeFries
Still, Falcon 4.0 created a high fidelity flight sim and an integrated dynamic campaign engine in 5.5 years. Unfortunately the effort also bankrupted Microprose/Spec Holobyte and effectively took Hasbro out of the videogame business.

Is that a fair statement? The DC alone was the reason it took down a gaming company?


Originally Posted By: cichlidfan
They did it, but it caused the company to collapse. If those are the options, I will stick with what we have even with the issues that come with it.

Do you have investments in the longevity of a company? Would you rather a company make a meager product and putter on for a few years or would you rather have a good product? I've heard of stuff manufactured to such high standards that a company would rarely see repeat business. We hear of "planned obsolescence" being built in so many products. As a customer, this does not do well for me at all. I would rather buy one TM Warthog that I know will last me a long time than buy a cheap Saitek that I may need to replace every few years.


Originally Posted By: cichlidfan
Complaining, about missed deadlines, for example, does not constitute a bug report.

Here you go:

link


And just read the description from this video:

link
Posted By: Jedi Master

Re: Paradaz - 10/04/16 07:50 PM

A path that leads to success does not preclude there being a better path to even more success.

Regardless of whether you are satisfied or not with DCS World as it is now, whether or not you think it took too long to get here, whether or not you think it's been alright all along, everyone can agree there is plenty of room for improvement.

Unless you have an appalling lack of imagination, of course, in which case...I'm sorry for you.



The Jedi Master
Posted By: - Ice

Re: Paradaz - 10/04/16 07:56 PM

Originally Posted By: Troll
To me, there's a big difference between complaining and criticising. Complaining has never brought me anywhere, so I stopped doing that around kindergarten wink Constructive criticism, however, works. I have been vocal about bugs and features in sims before, and been invited to closed testing because of this. Today, it's more about open testing, but the essential development process is the same, and devs still listen to reasonable criticism, bug reports and wishes.

So, no, I see no point in complaining. I do think there's a point in being constructive.

I see very little contructive criticism around here, but a lot of complaining,

Fair enough point. Back in the day, I would have staunchly supported ED. However, I've seen so many constructive criticisms shot down and many reputable members banned and I've realized that ED is not interested in any "bug reports" or "constructive criticisms" unless they were going to do it anyway. Take the scenario of Snoopy and Noodle's ITT gauge. They were not interested in fixing it, they were not even interested in being honest about it, and they played the whack-a-mole game too! Customers can be as constructive as they want, but unless ED wants to play nice in the first place, well, you're kinda playing russian roulette.

We are now criticizing both the product and the company and I think there's so much negativity that it comes off as complaining.

Complaining: express dissatisfaction or annoyance about something. - ED suxx bollz
Criticize: indicate the faults of (someone or something) in a disapproving way. - ED has missed their deadline.... again!
Posted By: cichlidfan

Re: Paradaz - 10/04/16 08:02 PM

Originally Posted By: - Ice
Do you have investments in the longevity of a company?


Yes. It is called the stock market. Currently the total amount involved is about equal to 15-20 years of my salary, when I was working. Invest wisely and you won't have to worry about where your money is going. My gaming, however, is not such an investment and doesn't deserve the kind of angst that you seem to get from DCS.

Originally Posted By: cichlidfan
Complaining, about missed deadlines, for example, does not constitute a bug report.

Originally Posted By: - Ice
Here you go:


Yes. I have seen his videos, bug reports, posts, complaints, etc. Personally, I think he needs to get out more, a lot more.
Posted By: HomeFries

Re: Paradaz - 10/04/16 09:03 PM

Originally Posted By: - Ice

Originally Posted By: HomeFries
Of course, people also tend to look at the history of Falcon 4.0 with rose colored glasses. Many don't remember that Falcon 4.0 was virtually unplayable at release, and that the patches that were released often broke the game more than they fixed it (even more than DCS patches sometimes break things in missions). It wasn't until 1.08 was released a year later that Falcon 4.0 was considered stable, and even then the campaign engine, while groundbreaking, was still buggy. It wasn't until Allied Force that I could run a campaign and not have to pray that my results wouldn't be lost in a CTD exiting the mission.

I am not that well versed with Falcon 4.0's history, but what was the gap between Falcon 4.0 and Allied Force?

To be fair, I'm sure people are still finding "bugs" with the current version of BMS ("it's not a bug, it's a feature!!")...


Originally Posted By: HomeFries
Still, Falcon 4.0 created a high fidelity flight sim and an integrated dynamic campaign engine in 5.5 years. Unfortunately the effort also bankrupted Microprose/Spec Holobyte and effectively took Hasbro out of the videogame business.

Is that a fair statement? The DC alone was the reason it took down a gaming company?

Falcon's history is long and complex, but the Cliff's Notes version is that after the 1.08 patch, Hasbro laid off the coders and Microprose shut their doors. Following this, somebody (likely one of the coders) released the 1.07 source code, which was the basis for the eRazor mods. In parallel, the Realism Pack mods worked to improve the sim through the databases. Eventually, a company called G2 Interactive got the rights to Falcon, and they used the improved eRazor code along with the database mods now known as SuperPak as the basis for their code. As such, SuperPak 3 was the big effort of the day, because G2 was going to assert its IP rights. G2 fell through and another group called Lead Pursuit attained the rights and released Allied Force, which had code based on SP3 but with significant campaign improvements.

I left out FreeFalcon, BMS 1.x and 2.0, RedFalcon and OpenFalcon (now part of BMS 4).

As far as a DC taking down a company, I didn't say that. However, it has been implied that this was the long pole in the tent. Falcon 4 is a very complicated sim with systems modeling that was unprecedented. The sim was also built from the ground up to work with the integrated campaign engine, so the project would sink or swim based on its success. I recall reading an interview from one of the campaign coders saying that what they did was impressive and groundbreaking, but if they had known what they were getting into they would never have done it. Falcon 4.0 took over 5 years to develop (not counting the post release patches to 1.08), and it was still a hot mess when Hasbro ordered its 1998 release in time for Christmas. Falcon 4 was groundbreaking in many ways, but the market focus had also shifted at that point to first person shooters, and console gaming wasn't far behind. Falcon may have sold just under 200,000 copies (in a day where 50k was considered successful), but they weren't able to recoup what they put into the project.
Posted By: Paradaz

Paradaz - 10/04/16 09:12 PM

Originally Posted By: cichlidfan
Complaining, about missed deadlines, for example, does not constitute a bug report.


If ED had a process to contribute to their lessons learned, I'd be all over it like a fat chick with a portion of chips.

Whinging at community members who aren't happy with ED missing deadline after deadline after deadline after deadline after deadline after deadline after deadline after deadline after deadline after deadline after deadline after deadline doesn't constitute a bug report either.

At least we're discussing the game and are on-topic, some people seem more interested in talking about the community that play the game rather than the game itself. How bizarre is that! Perhaps you would prefer to create a new thread where the community can talk about each other - that may be more suitable for your line of posting. You could also request photographs and phone numbers too if that tickles your fancy.
Posted By: Force10

Re: Paradaz - 10/04/16 10:07 PM

Originally Posted By: HomeFries
Still, Falcon 4.0 created a high fidelity flight sim and an integrated dynamic campaign engine in 5.5 years. Unfortunately the effort also bankrupted Microprose/Spec Holobyte and effectively took Hasbro out of the videogame business.

Originally Posted By: Ice
Is that a fair statement? The DC alone was the reason it took down a gaming company?



There is some mis-information I think here. I remember reading an article way back about the creation of the Falcon 4 DC. We all know how robust it is...the big difficulties was getting it to run efficiently on the minimum specs that were going to be listed on the box. Can you imagine the hurdles that had to be done to get it to run on a Pentium 166MHz, 32MB RAM, 175MB HD space?

Not to mention the hardware they were using to program/compile/test on back in the day. If they were to re-create the campaign today on today's hardware without those handcuffs...it could have been accomplished in a fraction of the time. Probably less than a year.

So the notion that it would "bankrupt" anyone in these times is a bit silly I think. The problem today isn't horsepower...it's that there's not anymore talented campaign programmers to pull it off.

This is why DCS will never have a dynamic campaign IMO
Posted By: - Ice

Re: Paradaz - 10/04/16 10:11 PM

Originally Posted By: cichlidfan
Originally Posted By: - Ice
Do you have investments in the longevity of a company?


Yes. It is called the stock market. Currently the total amount involved is about equal to 15-20 years of my salary, when I was working. Invest wisely and you won't have to worry about where your money is going. My gaming, however, is not such an investment and doesn't deserve the kind of angst that you seem to get from DCS.


So in this instance, are you here speaking as an investor in ED or as a customer of ED? In one case, the success or failure of the company will affect you, in the other, the success or failure of the company has nothing to do with the quality of the product.

Originally Posted By: cichlidfan
Originally Posted By: cichlidfan
Complaining, about missed deadlines, for example, does not constitute a bug report.

Originally Posted By: - Ice
Here you go:


Yes. I have seen his videos, bug reports, posts, complaints, etc. Personally, I think he needs to get out more, a lot more.

Ah yes, but him getting out more (or not) isn't the issue here. You mentioned bug report -- here is a guy that made a bug report. End result -- it wasn't worth the time.


Originally Posted By: Troll
Originally Posted By: - Ice
How many times do people in your field discuss the 98% of good landings? How many times do people in your field discuss the latest belly-up or botched landings? I rest my case.


We do discuss incidents and accidents, to learn from them. Very few pilots are stupid enough to believe that the very same thing couldn't happen to themselves, so we dwelve into these matters with great caution. No finger pointing. No name calling. The media takes care of that.

If my colleague could f@ck this up, so could I. I better hear what he has to say about it, so I won't repeat it.

Now, if we were to laugh, ridicule and chastise every pilot who made a mistake, how many pilots would freely and openly share their experiences, you think?

Just reinforcing the point that the things that "go well" don't get talked about because things are expected to "go well." The things that do NOT go well, the negative things, the mistakes, those are what gets discussed.

Unfortunately, some people seem to fail to learn from previous mistakes even when it is pointed out biggrin


Originally Posted By: HomeFries
As far as a DC taking down a company, I didn't say that. However, it has been implied that this was the long pole in the tent.
<snip!> but they weren't able to recoup what they put into the project.

A lot of people seem to love to cite that since a DC led to their downfall, if ED made a DC, they, too, will go out of business. Surely there are other factors at play than just the DC. True, they may have not recouped what they put in, but surely things have changed since that time both in terms of coding and in terms of marketing? They may not have recouped what they put in, but how much of the total budget was spent on the DC? It being a "big part" of the success of the project does not equate to it being the most expensive part of the project.
Posted By: xXNightEagleXx

Re: Paradaz - 10/05/16 12:53 AM

Originally Posted By: Force10
Originally Posted By: HomeFries
Still, Falcon 4.0 created a high fidelity flight sim and an integrated dynamic campaign engine in 5.5 years. Unfortunately the effort also bankrupted Microprose/Spec Holobyte and effectively took Hasbro out of the videogame business.

Originally Posted By: Ice
Is that a fair statement? The DC alone was the reason it took down a gaming company?



There is some mis-information I think here. I remember reading an article way back about the creation of the Falcon 4 DC. We all know how robust it is...the big difficulties was getting it to run efficiently on the minimum specs that were going to be listed on the box. Can you imagine the hurdles that had to be done to get it to run on a Pentium 166MHz, 32MB RAM, 175MB HD space?

Not to mention the hardware they were using to program/compile/test on back in the day. If they were to re-create the campaign today on today's hardware without those handcuffs...it could have been accomplished in a fraction of the time. Probably less than a year.

So the notion that it would "bankrupt" anyone in these times is a bit silly I think. The problem today isn't horsepower...it's that there's not anymore talented campaign programmers to pull it off.

This is why DCS will never have a dynamic campaign IMO



I do agree that running a DC on given specifications at that time was very hard, IMO that hardest point. However as programmer, I do not agree with "there's not anymore talented campaign programmers". Dynamic Campaign is not the top notch of programming difficulty, it is far from it. There are programmers around the world that works on way harder projects to design and develop. I also believe that a small, but good, team could reach a good point within 6 months as long as the base software will be easy to integrate with.
Falcon source code shows that many technique has not been used, useful techniques, some already used at that time, although with a low degree. The code itself is a bit messy, I don't doubt that in these days the result could be way better.

Speaking of DCS itself, i believe that for a DC that respect ED ADVERTISED standards a huge revamp should be done specially AI wise. The code relies too much on scripts behavior rather than multiple level of AI. As example at current state/implementation the software should generate scripts, for each unit, that DRIVE the AI on each step which is NOT BAD when used as tool for users but is awful when it comes to simulate a natural flow behavior, it becomes soon too messy and complex. AI should not rely on scripts (rather than for....scripted situations) ai should rely on transparent pure abstraction upper level to extremely low level that actually move the entity.

In conclusion, let's not mystify DC.

NE
Posted By: Paradaz

Paradaz - 10/05/16 05:28 AM

If ED don't have some input into testing campaigns that are released as payware and integrated with their base product then they are:

1. Unprofessional
2. Absolutely #%&*$# mad

I fully expect ED to test these campaigns to ensure functionality and quality before release. Its hard to believe they would even allow a campaign to be released without a certain level of quality. This is another reason why I suggest that every campaign has to utilise ED resources even if its created by 3rd parties, and also that an update to the base engine/version will require another subset of testing for all campaigns......the more campaigns there are the more time for testing is required.

I'm sure ED test all platforms on a new DCS release, there is no valid reason why campaigns wouldn't be tested too. Another reason why I'd much rather a stable version of DCS is focused on before we see a flurry of these additional content campaigns. They're already in a position whereby campaigns only work with a certain development branch of the game which is madness. They mmay get a quick cash boost in the short term but probably lose it in the long run due to the increased effort that will be required post 2.5.
Posted By: Sobek

Re: Paradaz - 10/05/16 07:07 AM

Originally Posted By: - Ice



Oh, it's you! I shoulda known.

The thing is, some of the, how should i put it, less considerate videos you made (remember the one about EtherealN? I know you do! :)) are no longer there to be viewed by the public.

To cut a long story short, you don't tell even half of the story between you and ED here, just the little part that doesn't incriminate you.

(Btw. remember the time you told off all the helpful advice from mods despite you raising an enormous stink when you thought that DCS input was broken, just to find out that your USB drivers were fcked up and it was no fault of ED at all? Then you disappeared without an apology. That was fun! So much for the 'quality' of your bug reports...)
Posted By: ST0RM

Re: Paradaz - 10/05/16 03:39 PM

As a customer, arent you investing in that company by becoming a paying customer?

If one was to only fly the free Cuacasus map in the Su-25T or TF-51, you arent truly a customer. You've invested ZERO of your money, other than time.

Once you cross that bridge and start buying the pay-to-play modules (including NTTR 2.0 map), you begin to expect progress on those items.

And when said company requests customer help in squashing bugs, but these inputs are rejected as incorrect (despite them being legit problems), you toss up your hands and stop trying to help. And you also begin to question their knowledge base.

I see both sides of this arguement. These campaigns are getting weekly patch updates in order to allow them to function within DSCW. Other modules are languishing in Alpha/Beta status for months, with many functions inop. This, to the customer/investor, frustrates them and questions credibility.

On the other side, you are content with the current status/products. You're investment has provided exactly what you wanted from it. Or have enough distractions that you're not on it daily.

Frankly, this forum has become a place to read arguements, rather than a helpful base of knowledge. Or to organize a group flight and enjoy the sim.
Posted By: Paradaz

Paradaz - 10/05/16 06:48 PM

Originally Posted By: Troll
Do they have to use personell tasked with development, to test the campaigns?
Is it possible that Wags and a group of external testers can do this?

You base a lot of your complaints on vague notions, of which you have no knowledge.


LOL....who is talking about or has even mentioned developers doing the testing.....apart from you?

You're talking about 'vague notions of which I have no knowledge' and then come out with an assumption that developers have to test? - I'm an integration manager by trade - has it not occurred to you that the people that SHOULD be testing 2.5 which will be no small task are potentially getting diverted to test payware campaigns that will have to be tested all over again for the release of 2.5 anyway? Obviously not.

This whole thread is based on the concern regarding ED's resources that would otherwise be involved with getting core elements in place being sidetracked with less important activity. There's more to development than lines of code and 'resources' are company wide, not pigeon-holed into one specific area. No-one should really have to explain to you how taking on additional work can have a detrimental effect on core business.....especially in ED's case when they are already hemorraging effort by having multiple dev streams on the go.

I assume my vague notions are only vague if you don't understand it yourself.
Posted By: Tom_Weiss

Re: Paradaz - 10/05/16 07:08 PM

Originally Posted By: ST0RM


Frankly, this forum has become a place to read arguements, rather than a helpful base of knowledge. Or to organize a group flight and enjoy the sim.



if you are still arguing and complaining, you are still interested in the game, if your interest has become superficial or negligible, you don't care.
Posted By: - Ice

Re: Paradaz - 10/05/16 07:14 PM

Originally Posted By: xXNightEagleXx
Speaking of DCS itself, i believe that for a DC that respect ED ADVERTISED standards a huge revamp should be done specially AI wise. The code relies too much on scripts behavior rather than multiple level of AI. As example at current state/implementation the software should generate scripts, for each unit, that DRIVE the AI on each step which is NOT BAD when used as tool for users but is awful when it comes to simulate a natural flow behavior, it becomes soon too messy and complex. AI should not rely on scripts (rather than for....scripted situations) ai should rely on transparent pure abstraction upper level to extremely low level that actually move the entity.

Serious question: is it harder to re-do a graphics engine from the ground up (which I understand EDGE to be) that to do a DC and re-do AI?


Originally Posted By: Troll
Ah, but you conveniently missed the point; that it's a big difference in how the negatives are discussed. To turn them into something postive, from which we learn...

No I did not. Discussing ED's negatives brings it to light; they can easily go to the ED forums to see all the positives. Then they can decide how much support they want to put in, whether to buy a "new" alpha/beta module or not, and even know where to set their expectations regarding the sim/modules/devs. Imagine if someone new reported a bug, then got banned. He'll feel really bad... until he discovers that he was just the latest "victim" of whack-a-mole, then he won't feel so bad that he's not alone... and so on.


Originally Posted By: Troll
Originally Posted By: - Ice

And nobody from ED tests these campaigns to meet a certain minimum standard?

I don't know. Do you?

Did you just listen to yourself there? Imagine you ran a company making simulation aircraft. You sell your product through your store. Someone comes up to you and says he's made a campaign and would like to sell it through your store. You just PUT IT UP on your store WITHOUT even looking at it? You just sell it without seeing if it's even worth selling?


Originally Posted By: Troll
Originally Posted By: - Ice
Is it wrong to expect a company that has been around for XX years to at least know how to do a job estimate? Is it wrong to expect a company to show direction and focus with regards to it's projects? Is it wrong to expect products to be finished and bugs to be squashed?


Does it help getting frustrated about it, and complain..?

Does it help just shutting up about it and sitting in the corner?


Originally Posted By: Troll
Do they have to use personell tasked with development, to test the campaigns?
Is it possible that Wags and a group of external testers can do this?

And Wags and this group of external testers approve or disapprove work WITHOUT any involvement from ED? Again, go to the sim company analogy above. Just because you "outsourced" part of your "work" does not mean you're 100% hands off... or if you **ARE** 100% hands off, well, that's a scary way to run a company.


Originally Posted By: Troll
You base a lot of your complaints on vague notions, of which you have no knowledge.

True, we may be speculating, but so are you. Personally, I do try to use a little common sense in my thinking, hence the "speculation" that ED does look at the campaigns and other 3rd party stuff it sells on it's very own website, rather than the "speculation" that ED has nothing to do at all with the campaigns (and other 3rd party stuff) it sells on it's very own website.


Originally Posted By: Sobek
Oh, it's you! I shoulda known.

Unfortunately, no. That's just a video I stumbled across on YouTube. Funny how hard you pounced on it though.


Originally Posted By: ST0RM
As a customer, arent you investing in that company by becoming a paying customer?

In a sense, yes. But I was trying to point out a distinction between a "investment as a paying customer" or just "customer" vs. a true investor. A customer cares about the product. Is he getting value for money? Is it a good product? Will he recommend it to his buddies? An investor may do so as well, but is sometimes more "invested" in the bottom line of getting his money back and more money. We all know horror stories of such "adventures" all in the name of attracting or pleasing investors to the detriment of the customer.


Originally Posted By: ST0RM
Frankly, this forum has become a place to read arguements, rather than a helpful base of knowledge. Or to organize a group flight and enjoy the sim.

Much better luck can be found by joining a virtual squadron! biggrin


Originally Posted By: Troll
Sure! But at what pace, when buying a product stated as early access..?

And this seem to be the occasional case. But the truth is most inputs from customers are considered...

Or acknowledge the faults of the product as being consistent with the status 'early access', and understanding what it means to buy into prototype software.

So, what pace is acceptable to you, Troll? Obviously you're still happy with the rate ED is going, but is there an upper limit for you? Will you still hold the same opinion 4-5 years from now if ED were still where we are at now, but with just more modules tacked on and existing modules ignored or little progress? How about in 10 years? What's your limit? In other words, how long can we really be "prototype software?"

As far as inputs from customers, like I said, I think they only really "consider" those that they were going to do themselves anyway. Just like their "poll" that they seem to be ignoring the results of.
Posted By: - Ice

Re: Paradaz - 10/05/16 07:18 PM

Originally Posted By: Tom_Weiss
if you are still arguing and complaining, you are still interested in the game, if your interest has become superficial or negligible, you don't care.


This.

Either you're just here trolling or you're really interested in the game and it's development. Any other reason would just have you walking away and spending your time pursuing other endeavours.
Posted By: Tom_Weiss

Re: Paradaz - 10/05/16 07:25 PM

most here are I believe are still interested - I am looking forwards to my kickstarter rewards.
Posted By: ST0RM

Re: Paradaz - 10/05/16 09:11 PM

@Troll

I knew buying early access alpha meant it was going to be rough. But after 10 months and nearly no significant updates, you have to wonder. They've recently posted many new airports for future release. But at this pace, the next major update for NTTR would be in another 10-11 months? To me, alpha status indicates it's a work in progress. Not a release as-is and we'll get to it when we've got time. Incremental airport/feature releases to NTTR would reassure many that it's not forgotten, amongst their many projects. Keeps it fresh and allows a few features to be tested for compatibility, versus 4-5 new airports and features and a flood of bug reports.

As for those bug reports, speaking on my own, I submitted one about the intake danger cones at Groom's EORs (yellow Pacman looking things). The parking alignment is 180 degrees off. Even with a few people backing me up, they still blew it off as a non-bug. I'm a friggin aviator and have first hand experience to back what I said. Same went for the A-10 gauge. Actual experience versus some guy who read a Tech Order during programming.

Lastly buying into prototype software. Sure, you're right. Expect it to be rough, but would be moved along at a reasonable pace.
Posted By: xXNightEagleXx

Re: Paradaz - 10/05/16 09:11 PM

Originally Posted By: - Ice
Serious question: is it harder to re-do a graphics engine from the ground up (which I understand EDGE to be) that to do a DC and re-do AI?


Graphic Engine is technically harder, specially when you try to achieve both eye candy effects and performance. However most of time both relies on well known algorithms/concepts that at most get some customization, so nothing really new. Besides, most of time it is harder and more expensive to expand or implement new feature/engine on old software than create from scratch.

What differs AI from graphics is that once you have done the graphic engine, and supposing no bugs and good performance, you are done, you load your objects and see them on the screen. AI instead requires a new phase of work which is the design of the agent behavior and how to use all tools that your system implemented (eg. behavior tree, state machine, influence map, etc...).

Again, let's not mystify DC specially with falcon 4 as standard because the way their implemented it, is not even close to a modern and better approach, although they did a very good job!
Posted By: - Ice

Re: Paradaz - 10/05/16 09:18 PM

Originally Posted By: xXNightEagleXx
Originally Posted By: - Ice
Serious question: is it harder to re-do a graphics engine from the ground up (which I understand EDGE to be) that to do a DC and re-do AI?


Graphic Engine is technically harder, specially when you try to achieve both eye candy effects and performance. However most of time both relies on well known algorithms/concepts that at most get some customization, so nothing really new. Besides, most of time it is harder and more expensive to expand or implement new feature/engine on old software than create from scratch.

What differs AI from graphics is that once you have done the graphic engine, and supposing no bugs and good performance, you are done, you load your objects and see them on the screen. AI instead requires a new phase of work which is the design of the agent behavior and how to use all tools that your system implemented (eg. behavior tree, state machine, influence map, etc...).

Again, let's not mystify DC specially with falcon 4 as standard because the way their implemented it, is not even close to a modern and better approach, although they did a very good job!


Thanks for sharing your thoughts! I do agree that there isn't really a "lack of talent" but if that talent is told to do XX or YY instead of DC, then we'll see what we have now with only Falcon 4 as an example. I know if someone wants to do it, they can do a DC.... I just question the "fact" everytime people say "but that's what ruined that company!!"
Posted By: GrayGhost

Re: Paradaz - 10/05/16 10:00 PM

DCSW is simply not set up to build a DC like Falcon's. A lot of things would have to change in the entire concept of the game, not just reprogramming. I'm reasonably certain that at least for now, ED has no desire to go in the direction of implementing aggregation/de-aggregation and other bubble techniques.

The devs did implement the fast battle generator which should be an entry into the DC style of say, Longbow II.

While it's not a DC engine yet, there are a few things in place that could potentially be tied together to create one. As you know, the campaign creation concept is the same as that in Jane's F-18: You basically have a branching mission concept.

All of these approaches have advantages and disadvantages - the obvious disadvantage of not having a DC is that players are rarely willing to build missions.

The advantage of what DCS has is the ability to build realistic scenarios - the unfortunate disadvantage here is that most people wouldn't know what a realistic scenario looks like if their lives depended on it.
Having said that, a lot missions and campaigns have been created for the game which are very enjoyable at least some of them are re-playable.

Both DC and non-DC rely heavily on the AI to provide the appropriate 'feel' to the scenario.

Regarding the graphics engines - while a lot of people like to pooh-pooh improvements in graphics, the fact is that visual realism is very important to what is a mostly visual business.

There are a few reasons why flight sim pilots effectively suck at flying a real aircraft, but are good with instruments:

- No instruction (duh)
- The terrain sucks, so no one uses it to navigate (... plus lack of instruction!) - ED made a huge dent in this one with their continual improvement of graphics
- The instruments are in your face, and it's a bother to change the view
- why turn at 1.4g when you can turn at 9? (try it RL, it will probably be completely self-explanatory! smile )

I'm well aware of most of these 'flight simmer diseases', I suffer from them smile

Some of this has been changing lately - things like TIR and recently VR will be making a huge difference in flying habits.
Posted By: GrayGhost

Re: Paradaz - 10/05/16 10:10 PM

1) You're right
2) They're right (not an actual bug)

It's being looked after. Don't let the small things frustrate you - I understand, I get it - but it's a small thing, language is sometimes a barrier, and busy people might not have the time to sit down and grok the information. It just takes a little time sometimes smile

Originally Posted By: ST0RM
As for those bug reports, speaking on my own, I submitted one about the intake danger cones at Groom's EORs (yellow Pacman looking things). The parking alignment is 180 degrees off. Even with a few people backing me up, they still blew it off as a non-bug. I'm a friggin aviator and have first hand experience to back what I said.
Posted By: Paradaz

Paradaz - 10/06/16 05:23 AM

You're just going full circle now repeating yourself. Read the very first page of this entire thread....you're talking about being so sure, chest thumping, this, that and the other. Quite clearly the CONCERN is that ED are taking on too much and are now focusing on campaigns to the detriment of the core game and its updates.

The CONCERN was that the amount of campaigns are snowballing which means even more work for ED following the 2.5 merge as they ensure compatibility and functionality. And yes, this snowballing has happened....we're not talking about 2 campaigns anymore when this thread first started.....the count is now up to 10 or 11 (possibly more). The only thing I've claimed I was right about is that the amount of campaigns would gain momentum - are you really trying to dispute that?

The CONCERN is that the more campaigns there are, the more work ED will have to do come 2.5 when the focus should be bug-fixing and testing of higher priorities such as the core game. Although you like talking about how these CONCERNS are a load of rubbish you still have offered nothing to suggest why.

I'll refer you to page 33...go ahead and read that page and the next 5 or 6 pages that follow. It will save you from regurgitating the same old nonsense all over again as we've been there before.

http://simhq.com/forum/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=4301102&page=33

And no, you don't have the same modules as me nor the same investments.....so there you go. We have different software.

Here's a challenge for you Troll. Why don't you summarise all the DCS progress since the date this thread was started. I'll summarise the campaigns that have been released since this thread was started. My post will be longer and more detailed.
Posted By: ricnunes

Re: Paradaz - 10/06/16 10:23 AM

I guess that I'm one of the "complainers".
And as such I strongly believe that the "ED is taking too long" concern is more than legitimate. And it becomes even more legitimate because the reason for the successive delays from ED seems to be more due to the ED's LOSS OF FOCUS than because this is a hard task!
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that developing a combat flight sim such as DCS is "easy". I'm actually saying that it's VERY HARD. However when you have a VERY HARD task in hands (such as developing DCS) you actually need to get you act together and focus and prioritise tasks or above all NARROW the list of "things to do" and not widen them.

If you start widening your list of VERY HARD tasks and don't prioritise or completely lose FOCUS than a VERY HARD task will becomes an IMPOSSIBLE task unless you have huge amount of resources available (which is clearly not the case of ED)!
And this exactly what ED is currently doing so for me it's absolutely NO surprise that we see all these delays with DCS.
I'm 100% sure that if ED doesn't change this attitude and start to focus than the ED delays will be measured in decades instead of years. Actually this is already happening as we "speak"!

With the ED's "loss of focus", I'm actually talking about the plan (DCS) which was apparently to be focused on modern combat aircraft but "suddenly" gets in WWII, Korea and even something in-between Korea and modern/current days or even trying to transform DCS into a FSX/P3D/X-Plane/Whatever. This can only and obviously GO WRONG. Not only this will take an unacceptable development time but the end result will be a total mess such as for example:
- The only Axis flyable planes (BF-109K and FW-190D) historically never saw combat over the only WWII scenario currently planned for (Normady).
- F-86 and Mig-15 which were the "stars" of the Korean War without any proper map and proper plane/vehicle set.
- Trying to turn DCS into a sort of FSX but DCS can only a model/support tiny maps instead the entire planet Earth like FSX.
- And I could go on and on and on...

And in the meanwhile, the proper game improvement such as completing the Alpha/Beta aircraft, squashing major bugs (AMRAAMs, HELLOOOOO???), improving the gameplay by adding proper, useful and thrilling content such as DYNAMIC CAMPAINGS (yes, the DCs) or improving other stuff that the game already has (such as the Tanks in Combined Arms) or resuming improving things that are ALREADY IN GAME are apparently "left behind" or "massively delayed".
And this seems to me, it's the real reason for the ED/DCS "brutal" delays. The fact that ED and the fan(actics) aren't able to see this, is puzzling indeed.
Posted By: PFunk

Re: Paradaz - 10/06/16 12:34 PM

Originally Posted By: GrayGhost
It's being looked after. Don't let the small things frustrate you - I understand, I get it - but it's a small thing, language is sometimes a barrier, and busy people might not have the time to sit down and grok the information. It just takes a little time sometimes smile


I think we would all do very well to remember this very thing, not just in gaming, but for life in general.
Posted By: ST0RM

Re: Paradaz - 10/06/16 02:08 PM

Originally Posted By: GrayGhost
1) You're right
2) They're right (not an actual bug)

It's being looked after. Don't let the small things frustrate you - I understand, I get it - but it's a small thing, language is sometimes a barrier, and busy people might not have the time to sit down and grok the information. It just takes a little time sometimes smile


I was just using my example and how it was treated. It is small and I know this. But without being part of a dedicated test team using an ATP checklist to test the sim as a whole, I tried contributing as I found things.
We do this on the large, real world sims. And squash the easy fixes pretty quick.
Posted By: Jedi Master

Re: Paradaz - 10/06/16 02:24 PM

I think it's a mentality thing. Sure, there might be 100 easy things to fix that would take 5 mins each to address. But that's 500 minutes added up (or more if you count the time to document you fixed it, find the next in the list, go to that part of the code, etc) and that day would be better spent on game-breaking bugs and getting the 2.5 merge going.

For all we know, the 2.5 update will address many of these things and the 2.0 and 1.5 branches are only getting the bare minimum needed to sustain the new modules/DLCs. So once 2.5 comes out, a lot of this could be moot...but how much is 2.5 being held back by the little 1.5/2.0 updates?

Frankly, I think all module development should have been halted until 2.5 was done, with max priority given to it. As has been pointed out, some of the people working on these modules and DLCs are redundant for 2.5 anyway so they're not really hampering it that much and you don't want them sitting around doing nothing or fire them and hope you get them back in 6 months. Still, even one extra month added to 2.5 because of F-5E and campaign X is frankly unacceptable at this point.

It's one thing if your teenage son gets busted for smoking pot. It's another when they're in their 40s and get busted for the 25th time. Customer forbearance isn't infinite.
Every enhancement planned that was supposed to result in a single new update gets split and broken up to the point that we went from 1.2 to 2.0--except wait, that's got NTTR and it's taking too long but DX11 is ready now, so here's 1.5--and now 2.0 alpha--except wait, moving the Black Sea to 2.0 has revealed some other things, and we're doing this other stuff, so both 1.5 AND 2.0 are now dead ends--so up comes 2.5...or will it be 3.0 before they finally have it where they want it?

I'm surprised they didn't call 2.5 something like 10.0 to give them plenty of room to insert more stops along the way. If I could draw, I would make a cartoon of ED constantly trying to climb out of the mouth of the giant shark named Feature Creep.



The Jedi Master
Posted By: GrayGhost

Re: Paradaz - 10/06/16 02:30 PM

That's just unnecessarily pessimistic.

The Caucasus needs to be ported to the new terrain engine, which requires significant work. Period end of story. At the same time, NTTR is receiving enhancements. Both are things which are being done with no hint of this work being shown in 1.5/2.0 because none of these changes are production ready.

As for fixes to modules etc, they apply to all streams.
Posted By: Tom_Weiss

Re: Paradaz - 10/06/16 03:05 PM

I always found that skin templates give a wonderful insight on a flight sim developer team smile
Posted By: Force10

Re: Paradaz - 10/06/16 04:07 PM

Originally Posted By: GrayGhost


The advantage of what DCS has is the ability to build realistic scenarios


I was thinking about this the other day. DCSW has aircraft from WWII, Korea and up to modern day.

Exactly what historic scenario can you create with all these toys in the sandbox that has accurate terrain, ground units, naval and air?

I came up with zero. You can't do WWII, Korea, Falklands, Desert Storm, Iraqi Freedom...zip. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

Originally Posted By: GrayGhost
the unfortunate disadvantage here is that most people wouldn't know what a realistic scenario looks like if their lives depended on it.


I found this post interesting. It was made by someone defending ED about the sim being boring:

Quote:


Missions are user created, use your wealth of info on how to make the perfect mission and go make one, then host it or give it to someone.

A lot of the best mission makers have been put off by patches breaking stuff.


So you may be right about users not knowing how to make good missions...but apparently some of the guys that do know how to make realistic missions aren't doing it anymore.
Posted By: ST0RM

Re: Paradaz - 10/06/16 06:36 PM

Originally Posted By: GrayGhost
the unfortunate disadvantage here is that most people wouldn't know what a realistic scenario looks like if their lives depended on it.


I did pretty good on over 300 combat missions in 3 different theaters. Realistic and very dynamic scenarios were an everyday occurance.
Posted By: GrayGhost

Re: Paradaz - 10/06/16 06:40 PM

But how many other people have your knowledge and are in the flight simming community? smile

My statement stands - most people wouldn't have a clue, and 'dynamic' doesn't mean what most people believe it means. There are very few hand-crafted missions that reflect a realistic scenario and most DCs barely fare better without human intervention.
Posted By: GrayGhost

Re: Paradaz - 10/06/16 06:43 PM

Originally Posted By: Force10
I was thinking about this the other day. DCSW has aircraft from WWII, Korea and up to modern day.

Exactly what historic scenario can you create with all these toys in the sandbox that has accurate terrain, ground units, naval and air?

I came up with zero. You can't do WWII, Korea, Falklands, Desert Storm, Iraqi Freedom...zip. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.


No, you're not wrong. You might not be able to re-create historical scenarios. Nothing's stopping you from creating realistic scenarios.

No, I take that back. You can recreate the Georgian war as well as some parts of the Czechnyan ones, and with NNTR, you can recreate Red Flags. Those count as historic scenarios smile

Quote:
So you may be right about users not knowing how to make good missions...but apparently some of the guys that do know how to make realistic missions aren't doing it anymore.


Plenty of people are creating missions, and a bunch are making money off of them. This doesn't make the statement untrue, but it might make your implied conclusion incorrect.

The simple fact is that hand-crafted missions take a lot of work, and that's a barrier to entry.
Posted By: Tom_Weiss

Re: Paradaz - 10/06/16 07:57 PM

Originally Posted By: GrayGhost


The simple fact is that hand-crafted missions take a lot of work, and that's a barrier to entry.


that can be said of many things in DCS - like this one



and I thought that the Aerosoft Twin Otter was complicated ... hahaha
Posted By: - Ice

Re: Paradaz - 10/06/16 09:13 PM

Originally Posted By: GrayGhost
DCSW is simply not set up to build a DC like Falcon's. A lot of things would have to change in the entire concept of the game, not just reprogramming. I'm reasonably certain that at least for now, ED has no desire to go in the direction of implementing aggregation/de-aggregation and other bubble techniques.

The devs did implement the fast battle generator which should be an entry into the DC style of say, Longbow II.

While it's not a DC engine yet, there are a few things in place that could potentially be tied together to create one. As you know, the campaign creation concept is the same as that in Jane's F-18: You basically have a branching mission concept.

Two things that annoyed me in DCS that Falcon's DC easily fulfilled:
1. An environment that's ALIVE. I could make a TE in Falcon if I wanted a sterile environment, but for anything else, I could launch a campaign and the theatre just feels alive. Units taking off or landing, flights egressing or RTB, having to pay attention to AWACS calls in case there are bad guys that have slipped through... in DCS, getting that feeling would either be using the fast battle generator or lots and lots of scripts.
2. An environment that is persistent. Bomb that bridge and if you fly over it on the next 3-5 missions, it'll be there, damaged... take out that runway and you can safely fly over it on your next mission.

While it may take a lot of work for ED to make a DC (and possibly re-design a new system from the ground up), they were willing to move to EDGE so at least we know they're not shy about the effort biggrin


Originally Posted By: Troll
I'm trying to get you to explain what you know about how actual development of DCS is hindered by the release of DLC campaign, in any significant way to be measured.

How could it NOT be delayed by these "distractions"?


Originally Posted By: ricnunes
And in the meanwhile, the proper game improvement such as completing the Alpha/Beta aircraft, squashing major bugs (AMRAAMs, HELLOOOOO???), improving the gameplay by adding proper, useful and thrilling content such as DYNAMIC CAMPAINGS (yes, the DCs) or improving other stuff that the game already has (such as the Tanks in Combined Arms) or resuming improving things that are ALREADY IN GAME are apparently "left behind" or "massively delayed".
And this seems to me, it's the real reason for the ED/DCS "brutal" delays. The fact that ED and the fan(actics) aren't able to see this, is puzzling indeed.

I'm puzzled that they seem to be happy with aircraft that seem to be in constant "beta" on a platform (DCSW) that has been in "beta" for a good while now. Maybe it's the short attention span? Or the lack of commitment to one aircraft? They fly Plane A and when they hit bugs or it gets boring, they fly Plane B and when they hit bugs or it gets boring, they fly Plane C and so on...

I'm puzzled by the fact that they seem happy with ED just using the "beta" excuse for everything. As if ED just said so and they're satisfied with the answer.


Originally Posted By: Jedi Master
Frankly, I think all module development should have been halted until 2.5 was done, with max priority given to it. As has been pointed out, some of the people working on these modules and DLCs are redundant for 2.5 anyway so they're not really hampering it that much and you don't want them sitting around doing nothing or fire them and hope you get them back in 6 months. Still, even one extra month added to 2.5 because of F-5E and campaign X is frankly unacceptable at this point.

This.


Originally Posted By: Force10
Quote:
Missions are user created, use your wealth of info on how to make the perfect mission and go make one, then host it or give it to someone.

A lot of the best mission makers have been put off by patches breaking stuff.

So you may be right about users not knowing how to make good missions...but apparently some of the guys that do know how to make realistic missions aren't doing it anymore.

It's not even that... I used to customize DCS to give me custom snap views, custom wide-screen views, relocate the comms box, etc. I would have to dedicate a day or two after each patch to make sure my customizations got ported over properly. Then there came a time where ED moved stuff around, so AAA.lua no longer contained the lines I needed for some of my customizations and I had to go to BBB.lua or CCC.lua instead! I would have to trawl the ED forums to check if someone has found out where ED moved the lines so that I would know where to go to get my customizations back!

As a user, I got tired of "fixing" my game after ED would "break" it. I cannot imagine how frustrating this must be for a content creator.
Posted By: Jedi Master

Re: Paradaz - 10/06/16 11:40 PM

Originally Posted By: GrayGhost
That's just unnecessarily pessimistic.



Only if you ignore the entire history of DCS. If you plot that history and project it to the future, it's what I would call "prescient."

The idea that after a decade there will suddenly be some corner turned and everything will speed up and come out great is a George Lucas-level delusion of grandeur. What makes the most sense is that this path of taking one actual step forward (actual defined as what is released to customers, because internal tester builds are only one step up from vaporware) every 2 years or so will continue indefinitely.

There's something to be said for having a publisher light a fire under a dev's ass and force them to release a product on a deadline more concrete than "some day."



The Jedi Master
Posted By: Johnny_Redd

Re: Paradaz - 10/07/16 02:42 AM

Originally Posted By: - Ice
Originally Posted By: GrayGhost
DCSW is simply not set up to build a DC like Falcon's. A lot of things would have to change in the entire concept of the game, not just reprogramming. I'm reasonably certain that at least for now, ED has no desire to go in the direction of implementing aggregation/de-aggregation and other bubble techniques.

The devs did implement the fast battle generator which should be an entry into the DC style of say, Longbow II.

While it's not a DC engine yet, there are a few things in place that could potentially be tied together to create one. As you know, the campaign creation concept is the same as that in Jane's F-18: You basically have a branching mission concept.

Two things that annoyed me in DCS that Falcon's DC easily fulfilled:
1. An environment that's ALIVE. I could make a TE in Falcon if I wanted a sterile environment, but for anything else, I could launch a campaign and the theatre just feels alive. Units taking off or landing, flights egressing or RTB, having to pay attention to AWACS calls in case there are bad guys that have slipped through... in DCS, getting that feeling would either be using the fast battle generator or lots and lots of scripts.
2. An environment that is persistent. Bomb that bridge and if you fly over it on the next 3-5 missions, it'll be there, damaged... take out that runway and you can safely fly over it on your next mission.

While it may take a lot of work for ED to make a DC (and possibly re-design a new system from the ground up), they were willing to move to EDGE so at least we know they're not shy about the effort biggrin


Originally Posted By: Troll
I'm trying to get you to explain what you know about how actual development of DCS is hindered by the release of DLC campaign, in any significant way to be measured.

How could it NOT be delayed by these "distractions"?


Originally Posted By: ricnunes
And in the meanwhile, the proper game improvement such as completing the Alpha/Beta aircraft, squashing major bugs (AMRAAMs, HELLOOOOO???), improving the gameplay by adding proper, useful and thrilling content such as DYNAMIC CAMPAINGS (yes, the DCs) or improving other stuff that the game already has (such as the Tanks in Combined Arms) or resuming improving things that are ALREADY IN GAME are apparently "left behind" or "massively delayed".
And this seems to me, it's the real reason for the ED/DCS "brutal" delays. The fact that ED and the fan(actics) aren't able to see this, is puzzling indeed.

I'm puzzled that they seem to be happy with aircraft that seem to be in constant "beta" on a platform (DCSW) that has been in "beta" for a good while now. Maybe it's the short attention span? Or the lack of commitment to one aircraft? They fly Plane A and when they hit bugs or it gets boring, they fly Plane B and when they hit bugs or it gets boring, they fly Plane C and so on...

I'm puzzled by the fact that they seem happy with ED just using the "beta" excuse for everything. As if ED just said so and they're satisfied with the answer.


Originally Posted By: Jedi Master
Frankly, I think all module development should have been halted until 2.5 was done, with max priority given to it. As has been pointed out, some of the people working on these modules and DLCs are redundant for 2.5 anyway so they're not really hampering it that much and you don't want them sitting around doing nothing or fire them and hope you get them back in 6 months. Still, even one extra month added to 2.5 because of F-5E and campaign X is frankly unacceptable at this point.

This.


Originally Posted By: Force10
Quote:
Missions are user created, use your wealth of info on how to make the perfect mission and go make one, then host it or give it to someone.

A lot of the best mission makers have been put off by patches breaking stuff.

So you may be right about users not knowing how to make good missions...but apparently some of the guys that do know how to make realistic missions aren't doing it anymore.

It's not even that... I used to customize DCS to give me custom snap views, custom wide-screen views, relocate the comms box, etc. I would have to dedicate a day or two after each patch to make sure my customizations got ported over properly. Then there came a time where ED moved stuff around, so AAA.lua no longer contained the lines I needed for some of my customizations and I had to go to BBB.lua or CCC.lua instead! I would have to trawl the ED forums to check if someone has found out where ED moved the lines so that I would know where to go to get my customizations back!

As a user, I got tired of "fixing" my game after ED would "break" it. I cannot imagine how frustrating this must be for a content creator.



I suspect even the die hard ED supporters will tire of the endless cycle of delays, one step forward two steps back updates. We all have a finite number of years on this wonderful planet of ours. None of us are getting any younger and although flight games are a constant in most of our lives there comes a point when "enough is enough". "This is going nowhere, time to move on". We all have other interests and the frustration that DCS brings each time one fires it up will make the time between each fire up longer and longer. The game has potential but honestly I can't see ED fulfilling that potential in my lifetime or their current employees lifetimes. Not at the current development timescales. And not with the lack of focus they show.
Somebody said elsewhere in these forums, I don't recall who or where, that once a new aircraft is released it's fun for a couple of hours then what? Once the novelty wears off its the same old DCS. Having to wait 2/3/4 years for a couple of hours of novelty isn't going to create a thriving loyal player base. It's not going to create sales and it's not going to create a successful game. I'm out I don't have the patience or the desire to wait for what I'm owed. I'll be starting a thread to give away my modules soon.
A-10c, huey, flaming cliffs, p-51, Dora, 109, combined arms, f86, mig21, mig15, DCS ww2 (spitfire, p47, Normandy), Nevada and God help me the c101.
Posted By: Paradaz

Re: Progress and distractions - 10/07/16 08:21 AM

'Taking breaks' at will from their main task! Really? That's not how businesses work, time/budget/resources are absolutely key and there are dependencies everywhere. Even if they did the time is lost from the higher priority and progress slows. Only a fool would argue that.

Your example may have some relevance if someone needs to take a step back and make an appreciation of what they're doing because they identify a more efficient process, clearing their mind and coming back fresh (that seems to be what you're referring to?)....but that's also quite comical, because if someone needs to do that then it would also show that they're not fully conversant with what they're doing or the initial planning has not been very efficient in the first place. ED have absolutely no excuse to not have the 2.5 merge planned meticulously due to the amount of time they have had to prepare for it, the amount of mistakes they have made in the past and should have learned from in order to already improve their output (chortle).

As for these additional campaigns actually speeding development up for ED that's possibly a candidate for 'SimHQ quote of the year'! band


It's highly likely that ED are plodding on like they always have done, making no reference to lessons learned, not accounting enough risk whereby things can go wrong (and they do, that's never in doubt) and ultimately doing the same as they always have in the past. Under-estimated, under-delivered, allowed feature-creep, not made the necessary changes, not tested thoroughly (Hawk audio anyone?) not made 3rd parties aware in advance of the dependencies and not communicated well with their customers.

How confident are you in ED releasing a fully functional 2.5 build in before 2017 without caveating anything out of the build that they have previously mentioned will be in it? They have stated numerous times the release will be before the end of the year in newsletters but how many times have they said this for previous releases? Whilst I'm not expecting perfection by any means, my ESTIMATE would be (based on ED's previous form);


  • 1% chance of 2.5 release on time with stated features complete
  • 30% chance of half-arsed release, major bugs, missing features
  • 70% chance of no release, further delays


ED haven't achieved a release on time in the last 8 years that I can recall and I have no confidence in them improving their processes and practice because as mentioned earlier we have never seen evidence of this. How much confidence do you really have?
Posted By: Paradaz

Re: Progress and distractions - 10/07/16 09:53 AM

The 'taking a break' was an illustration of a point of view? Wasn't it a possible reason why ED may have delays a few posts ago? Your opinion is just as valid as anyone else's and no-one has ever stated anything to the contrary.

I've said all along this entire thread is a concern of mine. The posts that I have submitted are my opinion and I shouldn't need to emphasis that when posting on a forum. You do know that an opinion is a view or judgement formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge? Google it.

We all know none of us have the facts so why should you make an assumption that I'm suddenly not prepared to listen to others, can't discuss other opinions or refuse to acknowledge anyone else? If that was the case, wouldn't I have left this thread long ago?..why would I still reply to you or anyone else?...I've replied to both people that agree and/or disagree with me. On the flip side you're the one unwilling to discuss, you're getting tired and bored of me...doesn't this indicate that you're the person who has an issue with other people's opinions?

This is a forum, it's full of opinions...that why the forum exists and that's why we're all posting in here. Unless you can tell me otherwise none of us are privvy to board level meeting minutes so none of use have any facts. It's full of guesswork, estimates and judgements from all parties. Do you need a signed statement from everyone in order to validate it?

You never answered my question about how much faith you have in ED to deliver 2.5 on time with stated functionality in place with the reasons why you think they are capable. I have, and have justified my thoughts. I'm not afraid to be wrong either, if ED come up with the goods by the end of December this year I'll whole heartedly commend them, give them a virtual pat on the back and say I was way off track, totally wrong about them and they've obviously improved. If they miss the deadline again, I'll give them the slagging they deserve. Why don't you let us know how much faith you have in them, are you scared to be wrong? Are you afraid to show everyone you think ED will deliver 2.5 only to fail in case it justifies this entire thread? I'm more than happy for this 70+ page thread to be shot to pieces and blow up in my face if ED come up with the goods....and I hope they do.
Posted By: - Ice

Re: Progress and distractions - 10/07/16 10:36 AM

Originally Posted By: Johnny_Redd
I suspect even the die hard ED supporters will tire of the endless cycle of delays, one step forward two steps back updates.

Looks like some of them have immense amounts of patience, as we can see from some of the responses here biggrin


Originally Posted By: Johnny_Redd
And not with the lack of focus they show.

Looks like it's not just a select few that have noticed this "lack of focus."


Originally Posted By: Johnny_Redd
I'll be starting a thread to give away my modules soon.
A-10c, huey, flaming cliffs, p-51, Dora, 109, combined arms, f86, mig21, mig15, DCS ww2 (spitfire, p47, Normandy), Nevada and God help me the c101.

I love my A-10C and deep down inside, I'm still hoping ED gets its act together. For what I spent on DCS A-10C and the time I spent flying it, it is good value for money and this is even before all of these user-made "campaigns" so I do like keeping it in my "games library." I actually have TWO copies. biggrin


Originally Posted By: Troll
If ED was a one man show, then, anything on that guys plate would distract him.

Sorry, so your logic is:
One man = distraction
More than one man = no distraction???

What if that one man that got distracted was the guy at the helm of the ship that is ED?


Originally Posted By: Troll
The logic being applied here, by some, suppose that resources are being pulled from the development of DCSW to adress sale and testing of campaigns.
Yet nobody knows this is the case, but some are very certain that this must be the case, even without evidence or knowledge.

Without evidence and knowledge, any opinion will have to be considered guesswork. That goes for my view as well, I don't know either. But, somehow, any opinion, other than releasing campaigns distracts and slows the development of DCS, is considered unvalid.

This makes the discussion very convoluted since some of the participants refuse to acknowledge the fact that neither of us know, and that we are only guessing, making any reasonable opinion equally valid.

For all we know it could be the case that personell tied up in the core development of DCS in fact are reallocating resources to DLC. But they do this because they need a break from their main task. Haven't you been so focused on one task that you feel you need to take a break and focusing on something else? Haven't everybody? Maybe this even speeds up the development of DCS..? Just like micropausing has been proven to actually increase productivity.

My point is WE DON'T KNOW!

There is a difference between making an educated guess vs. a wild guess. We do not know for sure how much of the timeline has been affected by catering to DLCs, but we do know that it has been affected. How it could not be? You have a limted number of resources. Let's call it "100%". Assuming all of those resources were allocated to making 2.5 (or making 2.5 and other branches), then any distraction is taking away from the 100%. Now some would argue that not all employees are working on 2.5 (and other branches), so let's say 75% were on that and the other 25% are on something else. Catering to the DLC would still eat into that 25%. Unless you make the argument that the 25% were sitting there idle anyway, in that case, why do you have resources sitting at idle knowing that you won't make your deadline? Why not pare down the 25% and make it 10% and increase the 75% to 90% so that more work goes to the area that needs it?

We don't know how DCS runs its ship but we do know that they don't run it efficiently. Adding in this "extra work" only means they'll be even LESS efficient, not more. While you can argue that the "extra work" may not affect efficiency, knowing ED's past showing, the chances of that are "none-to-are-you-kidding-me?"

As far as taking a break, then take a break. Doing something else isn't "taking a break."


Originally Posted By: Troll
In the meanwhile, DCS works very well and is quite enjoyable in its current state. So I enjoy what I can in DCS, and this keeps me quite occupied. Haven't tired of it yet.

Again, your enjoyment of DCS has no bearing on this discussion at all. You still find it fun? Good for you. It doesn't make other points less valid.


Originally Posted By: Paradaz
I'm not afraid to be wrong either, if ED come up with the goods by the end of December this year I'll whole heartedly commend them, give them a virtual pat on the back and say I was way off track, totally wrong about them and they've obviously improved. If they miss the deadline again, I'll give them the slagging they deserve. Why don't you let us know how much faith you have in them, are you scared to be wrong? Are you afraid to show everyone you think ED will deliver 2.5 only to fail in case it justifies this entire thread? I'm more than happy for this 70+ page thread to be shot to pieces and blow up in my face if ED come up with the goods....and I hope they do.

I've always said that I would be so happy to be wrong about everything I say about ED. So what if I look like an idiot at the end of the year? We'll all be too busy flying "Improved DCS" to care! So what if I was wrong all the time and ED do have focus and commitment? It'll be a win-win for us and ED if I was wrong! How could I not want that?
Posted By: - Ice

Re: Progress and distractions - 10/07/16 11:33 AM

Originally Posted By: Troll
Ice, I have never said that my enjoyment of DCS makes other points unvalid. I have never said that people who don't enjoy DCS are fools.

Then why keep including that in a discussion?
In the meantime, my car is white and I enjoy driving it very much. I like long drives because I love my car.


Originally Posted By: Troll
I am, however, told that I'm a fool for not being certain that the release of DLC hinders the development of DCS.

Huh? Where was this stated, exactly?
Personally, I would say you are mistaken for claiming that the release of DLC hinders/delays/interrupts work on DCS, but I'm sure you knew that already. biggrin


Originally Posted By: Troll
I'm just pointing out that there may be an alternate reality to Parad-Ice world. biggrin

And there is!! Just not in DCS. Trust me, buddy, I wish there was an alternate ED reality.
Note that we're not saying DCS is not a good product. I just want to make that clear. Even with my expectations NOW, if I was coming into DCS right-this-instant with no previous experience of it, DCS A-10C and DCS BS2 are good products that have hours and hours of gametime. Hopefully, ED would get it's act together before those "hours and hours of gametime" run out, as it did in my case. Hence the allure of DC -- it's not only "hours and hours," but more and more!

So anyway, I'm not saying DCS is not a good product. I am saying that ED needs to get a clue, get it's act together, focus, and show a clear plan to follow. And actually execute the plan successfully. Catering to campaign DLCs does not show any of these, hence the vitriol! cuss2


Originally Posted By: Troll
But I don't know, and I don't try to make others believe anything that can't be substantiated with facts.

We don't know, you don't know, nobody knows. But using common sense, what does that tell you about "work" and "getting distracted"? Interesting how you've been avoiding this fact all along.


Originally Posted By: Troll
The Parad-Ice constellation are unfortunately all to eager to only view the negative points and you're so certain of your own beliefs it's borderline fanatical.

Your unwillingness or inability to view the negative points and keep on insisting on the irrelevant positive points (my car is white! did I say that already? I also love driving it!) makes me doubt whether you're reading the same thread.


Originally Posted By: Troll
Paradaz could just as well have told us in a 70 p thread that the alignment of the planets hinders DCS development. He has just as much evidence of that, and it's just as valid, if you believe in astrology,

Er, no. **THAT** is just plain stupid.
Posted By: Paradaz

Re: Progress and distractions - 10/07/16 11:34 AM

Originally Posted By: Troll
Paradaz,

I'm not playing your game...
I have answered your question already. Take a look. I don't know when 2,5 will be released. I have no way of knowing. Why do I need to answer that again?



I'm not asking you when 2.5 will be released. You don't know that, I don't know that. What I'm asking is what confidence you have in ED to deliver by the end of the year which is the intended release they themselves have stated many times in newsletters. I'm asking you if you think ED will deliver on time and if so how sure in percentage terms you are that this will happen. That question you have side-stepped 3 times now and I've also asked why you're swerving it.

You're tired of listening/reading other people's views yet this is exactly what you're allegedly complaining about with my posts. You say I don't listen and here I am asking you a question wanting an answer from you.
Posted By: - Ice

Re: Progress and distractions - 10/07/16 11:53 AM

popcorn

"But ED doesn't issue deadlines, at least not until pre-order..."

"But ED goes off the tax year, not calendar year, so March 2017 is still 2016 in Eagle Dynamics headquarters..."

"But other companies miss their deadlines too and even AAA titles get delayed..."


popcorn
Posted By: Contempt

Re: Progress and distractions - 10/07/16 01:25 PM

Can someone explain what is the hardest software to develop is now, that’s out there apart from simulations? (Sobek) DCS is going in right direction no? Pull back and develop games instead high tech latest technology? Continue and push to the limit of the technology available and invent new technology? Would 3rd parties follow?
Posted By: - Ice

Re: Progress and distractions - 10/07/16 01:56 PM

Originally Posted By: Contempt
Can someone explain what is the hardest software to develop is now, that’s out there apart from simulations? (Sobek) DCS is going in right direction no? Pull back and develop games instead high tech latest technology? Continue and push to the limit of the technology available and invent new technology? Would 3rd parties follow?

Welcome to SimHQ! Interesting choice of name and interesting choice of first post. I'm sure you're not someone's alt-account, right? biggrin

What do you mean "hardest software to develop"? How exactly do you describe something that is hard/difficult? People are making AI for robots, you can now "talk" to your smartphone or computer, etc. so making a DC shouldn't be that difficult given the right talent.

As for "going in the right direction," right direction to where?


Originally Posted By: Contempt
Pull back and develop games instead high tech latest technology? Continue and push to the limit of the technology available and invent new technology? Would 3rd parties follow?

This bit did not make sense at all. You asked about software then you talk about technology (hardware)?
Posted By: Contempt

Re: Progress and distractions - 10/07/16 02:37 PM

Originally Posted By: - Ice


What do you mean "hardest software to develop"? How exactly do you describe something that is hard/difficult? People are making AI for robots, you can now "talk" to your smartphone or computer, etc. so making a DC shouldn't be that difficult given the right talent.

As for "going in the right direction," right direction to where?

This bit did not make sense at all. You asked about software then you talk about technology (hardware)?


Just DCS is point of the spear in sim tech no? Dedicated coders in aviation, and no for just the money to code aircraft? 3rd parties taking some risk! but must be worth something? looking to some legacy for their time spent perhaps?
Posted By: Tom_Weiss

Re: Progress and distractions - 10/07/16 03:35 PM

Originally Posted By: Contempt


Just DCS is point of the spear in sim tech no?


yes

Originally Posted By: Contempt

and no for just the money to code aircraft?


no, yes

Originally Posted By: Contempt


3rd parties taking some risk!


yes - risk of pie in the face if fail

Originally Posted By: Contempt


but must be worth something?


what they hope

Originally Posted By: Contempt


looking to some legacy for their time spent perhaps?


aren't we all ?
Posted By: Paradaz

Re: Progress and distractions - 10/07/16 04:55 PM

Originally Posted By: Troll
I told you. I don't play your games. They are meaningless. smile


You are saying that all this discussion is meaningless because no-one has hard facts or answers....doesn't that make all your posts just as much of waste of time too given that you don't have facts either. Perhaps you have a different set of rules to everyone else that is apparently wasting their time in this thread.

You're also mis-quoting to fit your own argument...no-one has called you a 'fool' for not believing that additional work/campaigns hinders the development of DCS. I said that only a fool would argue that 'taking a break' from something would mean that time is lost and progress slows down..

Originally Posted By: Paradaz
'Taking breaks' at will from their main task! Really? That's not how businesses work, time/budget/resources are absolutely key and there are dependencies everywhere. Even if they did the time is lost from the higher priority and progress slows. Only a fool would argue that.
Posted By: Paradaz

Paradaz - 10/07/16 07:40 PM

Originally Posted By: Troll
Do you get it, this time around? There won't be another. Ok?


Originally Posted By: Troll
Nope. Not wasting more time on you.


Ah, this is part of the meaningless game! You keep saying you're not playing anymore, yet you keep answering and wasting more time on me. Now you can't answer or you'll look silly! neaner
Posted By: - Ice

Re: Paradaz - 10/07/16 10:19 PM

Originally Posted By: Contempt
Just DCS is point of the spear in sim tech no? Dedicated coders in aviation, and no for just the money to code aircraft? 3rd parties taking some risk! but must be worth something? looking to some legacy for their time spent perhaps?

Again, depends on how you define "point of the spear"... graphics-wise, yes. In other areas, well, other simmers have different opinions on that matter.

Dedicated coders, sure.... but the whole point of this and many other threads is that they seem to be "dedicated" to various things which makes progress on the core items of the sim quite slow.


Originally Posted By: Troll
Originally Posted By: - Ice

Then why keep including that in a discussion?
In the meantime, my car is white and I enjoy driving it very much. I like long drives because I love my car.

Because this is the DCS forum and not the white car forum..?

Yes, but your enjoyment of the game is as pointless to the discussion as is my white car. Might as well say the moon is blue. Bottom line, none of them contribute to the discussion.


Originally Posted By: Troll
Originally Posted By: - Ice
Huh? Where was this stated, exactly?

Here...

I'm sorry then, but arguing that stopping work to do something else and stating that it does NOT affect the timeline of the previous work is just silly. You're cleaning your car and you stop to clean your bike and you say cleaning your bike did not push back the time when you would finish cleaning your car?


Originally Posted By: Troll
Originally Posted By: - Ice
And there is!! Just not in DCS. Trust me, buddy, I wish there was an alternate ED reality.

And this is so fascinating... Your view is the only valid one.
"I wish I was wrong, but I'm not" Fabulous!

Unfortunately, I post my view and my reasoning behind it. You just seem to want to attack my view but provide no reasoning for your own.
"I'm right because [reasons]"
"Nope, you're wrong"
"I don't think so because [reasons]"
[sarcasm]"Ah, your view is the only correct one"[/sarcasm]



Originally Posted By: Troll
Originally Posted By: - Ice
We don't know, you don't know, nobody knows. But using common sense, what does that tell you about "work" and "getting distracted"? Interesting how you've been avoiding this fact all along.

Avoiding? I have addressed it several times.
The crux is how do we know ED is distracted by DLC?

Because who accepts, examines, tests, and approves DLC? Western Union? The President of the United States? Yo' momma?


Originally Posted By: Troll
I'm suggesting that there may be ED staff that can devote time for DLC, without interrupting development of DCS. Why is this suggestion invalid? Because it doesn't coincide with your opinion? Ok, besides that, then.

And what exactly are these ED staff doing when there is no DLC to test or approve of? Just sit in the coffee room?
If yes, then they're not earning their pay. They just sit around, using up ED's limited resources, with no work to show for it.
If no, meaning they do other work, then we're right back to where we started. They have to stop their work to review DLC and therefore delay their original work. Either way does not look good for ED simply because they choose to be "distracted" by the DLC.
Tell me again how your suggestion is valid?


Originally Posted By: Troll
And even if you're right, how do we know that a little distraction will delay the progress? Is it possible they approve overtime for DLC, that otherwise wouldn't be used for regular development? I would imagine they work office hours in Russia as well. Why can't this be the case?

Please, please, PLEASE cite me one example, just one... JUST ONE where a "distraction" did not cause a delay in a project's timeline. I'd love to use that on my manager who argues even a 15 minute coffee break is delaying the work for the day.

Also, you are suggesting that ED will pull people for overtime to test and approve DLC but will not pull people for overtime to make sure they meet their deadlines?


Originally Posted By: Troll
Edit: Ever heard this: "We've got some extra production. I need 3 guys to pull an extra shift tonight" Happens all the time in other production branches.
Extra production that lead to extra income, justifies extra work hours that otherwise wouldn't be budgeted.

Ever hear of this: "We got some extra bugs to squash, we need 3 guyst to pull an extra shift tonight." Doesn't seem to happen in ED's production branches, otherwise we'd be having totally different discussions in that area!

Extra bug squashing leads to happier customers who will recommend your product by word-of-mouth which leads to extra income and a more loyal, satisfied customer base.

Are we seeing this happening? No? Then why expect it to happen in other areas?


Originally Posted By: Troll
Originally Posted By: - Ice
Your unwillingness or inability to view the negative points and keep on insisting on the irrelevant positive points (my car is white! did I say that already? I also love driving it!) makes me doubt whether you're reading the same thread.

I do acknowledge the negative points. The negative point is that DCS development is slower than we would like. I totally agree, and have said so before. This is what's important. It's not important to guess why they're late. It's not important to make slanderous statements about inability and incompetence, based on subjective opinions without substance. Thats just being mean.

SO we agree that DCS development is slower than what would be expected plus reasonable allowances. Good. We're on the same page there.

Why are they late? That is not important to you? Then they release a product.... full of bugs. So they release a late product that is buggy and none of that is important to you?

"Slander" is making false statements made to damage someone's reputation. Calling a spade what it is is not slander. They are incompetent. Sure, they have released a working product. But there is no cohesion at all with their modules. WWII aircraft with no WWII theatres or assets, that sort of thing. They release modules that are buggy and then move on the next module and leave the first one without significant progress for a significant amount of time. Where is the slander in that?


Originally Posted By: Troll
And like someone believing strongly in astrology, Parad-Ice believe so strongly in their own opinions, that everybody else must be wrong.

No. I am mature enough to say that you COULD be right. However, you are failing miserably to support your opinions and instead, you attack us for having a different opinion from yourself.


Originally Posted By: Troll
But really... There's a limit to the madness. You will never ever admit there's even a remote chance that someone like me could have a point, and you seem to thrive on hanging around this forum, dissing ED.

We are allowed to voice our opinions, are we not? I thrive on the SimHQ forums, yes, but I post in other areas as well, not just DCS, and my opinions on those other areas are different. As for your point, make it. But be prepared to defend it, especially on "hot" issues like these. You can't just cry for the WAAAAHmbulance.


Originally Posted By: Troll
I'll just enjoy some VR dogfighting in DCS, while I wait for the next iteration of the software, the F-14 and the Viggen. Flightsimming have never been better. Furthermore, ED is actually working towards making it even better still...

Sure, enjoy your VR. Flightsimming has indeed never been better, but not all of it, not even a significant chunk of it is because of ED.

ED may be