I recently had lunch with some buddies who are casual DCS players. None are ones to follow social media, and have always been very positive and happy to play DCS as it is. We hadn’t talked about DCS in a while (we all enjoy different modules, eras and game types), and I was surprised that all of them were pretty grumpy and had negative outlooks as to DCS’ future. That’s an alarming sign, as these are NOT the types of customers who will be squawking and indulging in negativity online. They’re just quietly frustrated and scaling back on participation, even as guys who’ve all spent serious $$$ on DCS. All of them were hoping a competitor will emerge . ED take note.
I don't get why, all things considered DCS has matured. MT and other improvements have made perfromance far better while there is an avalanche of great content.
@@optimal9094 Some things that were mentioned: 1/ Still no dynamic campaign after years of saying 'its coming' 2/ Modules lingering in Early Access for years on end 2/ Lack of functionality with things like ATC, AWACS/GCI. 3/ AI that refuses to perform as expected (even with very reasonable commands that aught to work) 4/ Seemingly abandoned modules like Combined Arms or Supercarrier (we'll see how Airboss performs) 5/ Ongoing issues with VR not working as expected 6/ Lack of focus - scattershot approach to era-building such as WW2 7/ AI that isn't fun to fly against thanks to unrealistic performance That's off the top of my head without taking notes.
I am the very definition of casual player, and I find this list odd from that viewpoint. Any early access module is pretty complex and detailed for a casual, and ATC is OK for simple takeoff/landing, hardly a major issue especially compared to MSFS. VR works far better than MSFS and the only issue I had was the cross-eye thing on WMR for which there is an easy though obscure solution. Also I appreciate workaround options for spotting in VR Dynamic campaign is another odd item. Scripted campaigns work great for a casual, even better as it provides repeatable scenarios to learn from. If anything I'd say there is in general a lack of of good campaigns unless you fly an F-18. Finally we have good stuff for the F-16, but my other planes (Tomcat, MiG-21/15) collect dust because there are no good campaigns for them. AI is a tough one, I'd say for me the spotting advantage (through clouds) was the issue, otherwise I always thought as a metter of git gud. I would agree on WW2 though, indeed it is spreading the content thin - see my issue with campaigns.
I think ED is being honest and as transparent as they can be. The goals they have for this latest update is 0:01 a heavy lift, and a delay is better than the uproar that a buggy patch would have caused. I’m tired of the community’s attitude. There is a significant portion of posters who radiate negativity non stop, constructive criticism is one thing, but many go above and beyond in their hostility. ED is certainly not perfect, but I’m exhausted from the bitching and I’m sure the developers are tired of it as well. We need to come together as a community, we love DCS for its authenticity and complexity, and that demand for perfection is a challenge. We’ll only get there if we work together, and that includes the community as much as the devs.
I don’t read the keyboard warrior forums. I load the game up and enjoy this great sim in VR. ED do a fantastic job and we are lucky to have a title that allows us to jump into these legendary jets!
Well, DCS introduced many sales in recent past which attracted poorer individuals that do not have real life. All they probably can afford to do is spend time at PC/ on internet in their dark tiny dungeons which is not good for human psyche. Too much time online perpetuate anger, frustration and desire to argue about anything. Best to ignore them and concentrate on flying.
@@igorkratka What a bucking fullshit. Scraping together couple of dozens of dollars for a module is nothing. The gear, a graphics card or a joystick cost thousand unless it's made by Romet.
Overthinking and overreacting are hallmark features of some of the DCS player base. I love DCS, but I’m beginning to feel weary just because of the drama that surrounds it.
Look at almost any sim, and frankly, any game, and you'll find the same stuff. DCS is a smaller community, so we see/hear it more. If you're enjoying the sim, just enjoy it for what it is. The alternatives are either not as well polished or nonexistent. People will always complain in dcs it's how it's always been. ED can never do anything right, do a year of fixes people will cry no new content, do new content people cry things aren't fixed, new content isn't ready for release people demand it right now then cry when it has bugs. I'm a bigger fan of them pushing things back to get fixed before release. And this is the best we have for the time being.
Thanks for being a voice of sanity in all the craziness that is being pumped out right now. Me, I am going to keep practicing with my F-4 and will look forward to what the next patch will bring when it comes. In the 1990s there was a strong, motivated and vocal flight sim community (mostly around Falcon 4 and Fleet Defender), which tore itself apart with internecine griping--and we were left without significant new flight sim development until DCS (and the BMS guys who have quietly plugged along) really got going (read: about 15 years). And here we are in the midst of a real revival: lots of new products, both software and hardware and a large community. We need to preserve this.
Ai reacting to missiles has been an issue for quite a while. I’d send a phoenix missile in tws and they would start evasion before it even went active and all the missiles were missing.
ed is too slow to enter the AI race, .. they have dinosaur platform which can't really seriosly take advantage of 20+ years of advancements. polished turd with bunch of button clicking(i dont even think this is full fidelity, full fidelity would be plane reacting to dumb movements and wrong inputs thus breaking pumps, electrical components, jamming elevators etc. we have none of that. but we can click on buttons.. ahhh... and no competitor on horizon..so sad. i purchased shitload of equipment which is top notch but ED is not worth putting money in.. it feels they are on their way out..not in
Families sometimes fight and that's just how it is. Software developer missed a target release date, wow shocking. Does someone need a tissue? I have no time for drama.
I didn’t even realise how big this update was until the day it was supposed to be due. I haven’t been able to go on DCS since I damaged a nerve in my right arm and shoulder.
I’m not overly bothered about patch updates and the delays thereof. Personally I’d prefer more focus on a core campaign rather than new modules and features
I think enough modules have come out that after the CH-47F, there should be maybe a 6 to 12 month moratorium on new releases, while some core issues are really concentrated on. I’ve been waiting for the F4U Corsair (but that’s another topic), but it can wait…or maybe it’s been abandoned? There have been a lot of releases fairly recently that we could all take time to explore and learn in the meantime… the F-15E, F1 Mirage, MB-339, F-4E, OH-58, AH-64 and the CH-47, etc. …and then so many previous modules. I still enjoy the F-5E and F-86F. I hardly get around to flying the AV-8B and F-16C…and then there’s the JF-17 that I really haven’t even looked at yet. But I think concentrating on the AI would really help every user, regardless of which modules they use. Like why can’t AI aircraft do an overhead break into the landing pattern at airfields? Also, simple things like the wind. You can set ME to Western-world, English units, such as wind TO 090 (should be FROM and magnetic) at 4 kts but the ATC still reports it in game as 090 (true) at 4 m/s. Then there’s doubt as the how strong the wind really is. Also, ATC can’t give radar vectors to set you up to intercept final to either an instrument approach or visual to an overhead break. And much more than that. …use of VR goggles with Combined Arms, etc.
I'm afraid that until ED gets serious about the "holy trinity" the rift with a certain segment of the community will only get worse... 1) ground and air, friend and foe AI fix 2) dynamic campaign 3) full ATC overhaul there are a lot of other core issues but these three I feel are currently the most immersion-breaking. A fourth would be more graphics related issues that are not just eye candy but functional like realistic spotting, atmosphere rendering, fog, dynamic weather etc. A new more detailed mission planner with kneeboard generator and DTC stuff is also badly needed
I also think the constant BMS comparisons are hurting ED a lot. It's true that nowadays people feel good just commenting "BMS is better" everywhere and I agree its annoying, but in the end they are right: BMS is the living proof that getting certain core elements of the sim right is doable for a studio the size of Eagle Dynamics. It makes you constantly wonder what went wrong with DCS...
I really don't get why people consistently put ATC so high on the "must fix" list. Are you including AWACS fighter controllers and GCI as part of "ATC"? Because we definitely need better fighter controllers and GCI. I can deal with mediocre ATC insofar as takeoff and landing clearances and taxi directions go.
@@bronco5334 I think for single player types even just ground/tower is a big deal. of course everything else communication related needs an update but the basic airfield atc as of now if you are already flying alone is the worst
Out of these 3 there is only one issue, two others are nice to have features. Ground and air units AI is a real issue that takes away a lot of fun and enjoyment from DCS but you can live without dynamic campaign and updated ATC.
i still rage for my AI black shark go dumb and fire all its Vikhrs into a freaking electrical wiring tower and can't grasp it has to MOVE an inch so it avoids the cable.. ahhhh
I have been playing flight simulators since 1982 (first variant of Microsoft flight sim). I've literally played them all. DCS is by far the best all time hands down. If the crybabies want more accuracy.... join the military! They might understand national security better. I never thought a military sim would be anywhere close to what DCS is! Excellent work Eagle Dynamics!!!!!!
The choice is to have something out on time, but it doesn’t work, or wait a little and get want you want without any problems….. Hat’s off to ED for making the right decision.
There are a lot of games that do make good place holder systems for things that you can't get data on, such as EW. I think ED just needs to make something up that is consistent that can easily be implemented. Like how how the Fox2's work against flare. Make a system, roll some dice and have an out come.
I’m pretty sure that’s how they currently work. Like R-73s and 9X’s have a small range of rng numbers that leads to them chasing a flare. While something like and R-60 or a 9B have a huge range that leads to them chasing a flare. I may be wrong. But I’m fairly sure.
Honestly people complain when the update gets delayed by a few days, but they also complain when the update it released and horribly bugged. Can’t win. Much rather wait a few days or even a week for a flyable update.
I take it some of the Star Citizen fan base got bored with CIG conspiracies, so they made their way to DCS World to create some conspiracies here. That famous James Franco “First Time?” meme but with Chris Roberts looking at ED.
Some people want "burn the institution down" 🙂. I really like that phrase. Great update. As always, software presents it's hiccups. Context: Best Combat Flight Simulator ever.
I'm always suspect of active missile notching, with onboard radars on aircraft that use vectors to maintain an STT surely the notch should only work if the missile hasn't gotten its lock yet and is searching with the onboard seeker radar.
F-15E Radar: I'll try to make it short. Galinette coded the radar as a contractor for Razbam on F-15E. When the module came out, Razbam was not paid. They continued to work and to provide upgrade for months, but Galinette introduced a code to stop the radar from working if he wasn't paid. He informed Razbam about this. But there is nothing Razbam can do since they are not paid. It's also said that the "time bug is easy to fix". But ED don't have the right to alter F-15E's code because it's Razbam's intellectual property. Since then, Galinette found a new job. He's also a gamer and his code "time bomb" wasn't directed as cudtomers. So in good will, Galinette (nobody else) provided the patch to ED. For the record, Galinette (like most Razbam's devs) also said he would finish the project if he was ever paid his due. All of this came out thought various Discord and Reddit. RU-vid's commentary isn't the place to build a case and to share links and screenshot, so belive me or not...
That's my understanding. People accused him of sabotage, merely it was his way of protecting his work should the dispute drag into June. Unfortunately it did.
@Pricklyhedgehog72 And from my understanding, he created a framework for radar, INS and jet engine simulation when he reworked M-2000C. He uses the framework on F-15E, so he didn't only work on radar (APG-70 and TFR) but also on INS and engines. He delivered an excellent work right out of the box...and because of ED he didn't get paid for months/ years of hard work. Yet a lot of people don't care and show 0 empathy. I'm amazed.
I get that missing the release date for something isn’t THAT big of a deal when it’s a game…but people have a legit gripe that it’s EVERY TIME. EVERY module or major patch is delayed…multiple times. Things happen and sometimes things come up. But man, every damn time it gets delayed; often announced the day it’s supposed to be released. How about plan better? Think the project will take 3 weeks? Give yourself 4 weeks. Think it will take 6 weeks, give yourself 8 weeks. When I hear about bugs popping up during last minute testing the day before release, I want to pull my hair out; why are you testing something the day it’s due? Final testing should be done well prior to release so everything is ready. I don’t get it
That's the point. Prickly and other content creators, ED included, are trying to pin the blame on the fans. They are trying to go the LucasFilm way of blaming the fans for StarvWars failures. In this case, DCS, failures. And the blame is on ED, and ED alone. ED bad business practices, management and community management is the main cause that is causing all this falling out with the community. And they seem not to understand, or worse, don't want to hear the community.
I don’t agree that it’s THAT bad. I think most of the community is fine with things and just gets a little frustrated- like me- at constant delays. I don’t see any failures or falling out
Think you hit the nail on the head... the CMs already have their hands full with community drama with the RB vs. ED debacle and then missing marks and honestly obvious delays when there is zero content out for it the week before the planned release. Felt inevitable but also already in a bad situation so delays and missed expectations just adds fuel to the fire. A shame it was missed, but also been a very heavy release summer so far and the addition of FC2024 was very much overloading the plate. Think they are going to adjust their announcements accordingly to soon rather than exact dates (even with the *subject to change)
It feels like ED/DCS is at an inflection point. Here's to hoping they can pull it all together. The drama and toxic chat on some servers has pushed me away from doing any MP missions. Working on the basics again for my favorite modules on self generated maps/missions.
Just need to find a good group to play with online, PvE most likely :) The community has been getting stir crazy lately for lack of a better term, and a rough roadmap,with milestones instead of specific dates, from ED would probably help, so the community could understand that their feedback about ai, dynamic campaign, or whatnot was actually being worked on
I understand how these things happen however it seems to happen more times than not! I don’t understand how they can’t get it to a release point & then stop working on it, then release it & make your deadline. Then after the release they work on the next. I used to do this for a telecommunications company I worked for & deadlines were very important for cut overs. So it’s strange how they do things. It hurts their reputation not making deadlines.
I dunno guys, it’s one thing if a module breaks, after a patch release, because it’s not being updated; it’s something entirely different if a module (that I paid for) is deliberately sabotaged by its own developer. At least I think that’s what I heard Prickly say, the wording in the developer quote got a little confusing. I don’t really understand what coding a “marker” that breaks the radar on a certain date could mean other than willful vandalism.
I'll admit, I'm way too excited about the SC update, but I'll take it. If we don't know for sure that it will fail, let's trust that it will be just fine.
In the end, they still did not give any information about what bugs/issues they encountered only that they encountered consecutive problems which they weren’t able to solve in time.
@johanverhoeven3661 only in reference to the specific modules where some sort of crash occurred or stop bug cropped up. As they implemented more things after fixes, the issue seems to have compounded the problem. As you say. They didn't break down that further.
It is what it is, if a bug is found in a new patch how on earth can they release it into the community, it’s a no brainier………..but Prickly you are right, this isn’t good timing for ED, imho they need to be upping their game just a little bit, especially in testing it seems.👍😀
98% of us don’t really mind if they delay an update as long as it comes out right. The 2% are the complainers and they are extremely loud complainers, but they love their game also so we will cut them some slack.
I've always wondered how the whole ED/DCS ecosystem with 3rd party developers would work. Turns out, it doesn't. Because if you introduce code, you need to support it - constantly. Which costs money - constantly. IMO their business model of charging one-time fees doesn't work. As much as I hate it, ED needs to change to a subscription-based model or they need to charge for major updates (make versions instead of rolling releases). Only then, they can afford to constantly support, update and improve their products.
DCS has a player base less than MSFS 2020 and now 2024, so see support and monies as such. I had read that most conflicts in the nature of DCS and razbam tends to place the blame on secondary developers, ie razbam. I wonder if razbam was looking to branch out with the modules they developed to other platforms as others have, so to double the money. This would impact ED greatly since MSFS 2024 is rumored to have some missions rather than its ‘just fly around’ past used to be. Will be interesting.
@@thedirtboy1249 they already had dipped their toes in other franchises, and that is potentially part of the issue in term of intellectual property disputes with ED, and in part why we're here.
For me, I'm frustrated, but it's summer, and I don't have a lot of time to focus on DCS. It shows as I am loosing skills. I am still having issues landing the F-4e, I wish there was a way to get rid of that stupid checklist so I can actually see the cockpit. I am holding off buying anything till the Razbam thing is settled. I have three of the modules and I love them, but if there is no guarantee we can even use them, it's silly to spend money on them. I am depressed. I don't know what to do.
@@Pricklyhedgehog72 It's hard on top of this Trump Dictatorship looming over us also. I can't believe people are willing to accept a convict and a sexual predator to lead our Country. it's like in a bad movie.
@bulldog282 I don't see it in game, I think it is to do with the VR foveated views in which the resolution adjusts based on eye position. Just my guess.
I just got FC3 2024 used some of my saved up ED miles to update old FC3 to it for $9.99..............and finished the 2 hour + 2.9XXX update on my superslow hispeed connection
DCS World is spectacular, but currently I see that Eagle Dynamics is not knowing how to reconcile its objectives with the demands of its audience. Players hope that bugs and other recurring and annoying issues will be resolved, while ED is focused on releasing maps and plane modules that no one asked for.
ED keeps doing something new. That's why we get DCS, which is getting better and better. Failure leads to success. It is more true in the history of aviation.
Getting into glass cockpit programming resource nightmares starting to bite, eh? Have you noticed that there was no significant graphical updates since the new clouds? Yeah, yeah, there's DLSS but it's only a praised patchwork that doesn't even change how DCS looks. And it doesn't knock you off your feet. The atmosphere rendering is still absent, ground textures seem to be in 8-bit color, don't get me even started with the trees, the sky box has dreadful banding and many more.
@Tome4kkkk there's definitely some work needed in that area, especially in ground texture coloring and resolution rates. I'm aware of limitations with the resolution mechanics to avoid map sizes people will baulk at.
@@Pricklyhedgehog72 I have already banned Caucasus and I feel like the Kola map is at least partially a parody to say "look, ED, here's what came out using your tech and only hundreds of hours of tedious grinding would have changed that." But the atmosphere rendering is what grinds my gears the most. A blueish haze you can see even on some Desert Storm photos... you can barely get that over Britain in DCS.
@Tome4kkkk correct, I'm not sure yet if the game's engine can support this kind of atmospheric effect.The difficulty again is that some community members care deeply about this, others are more interested in other things that also legitimately need addressing. It's possible ED is stretched beyond its ability to keep pace with its development and manage its bug fixing. Structurally, it's difficult to manage a company whose personnel are scattered across continents. That can create logistical and workflow impediments I suspect, much more so than if everyone was under the same roof. A little speculation on my part of course.
@@Pricklyhedgehog72 Yes, but the thing is in a situation in which whatever you do, half of the crowd will not be satisfied you choose working on the core and the transferable code. Not computer-infested sinkholes. A great example of transferable code was the impeller modeling. Another - landing gear modeling that is slowly being implemented across many aircraft in 2024. You either prioritize the core or you become ArmA 3.
We should be happy that ED tests their stuff before release, playing betatester sucks! Having unfinished bugfilled MOD showcases to fly around with till the next CTD also! As long as you need, ED. You allready have my money anyway! And whatever those haters spit out, we all know you are the best!
Seriously, by owning multiple products of Razbam, including their map, i wont buy any future stuff from them. The modules i have - speaking of the M-2000 and the Harrier - have always been broken - always (as the F-15 will be). Taking out their dispute with ED on the customer is the final straw for me. Razbam, go to hell. Dear fanboys, imagine if your beloved F-15E came from Heatblur - do you think it would be in such a miserable state? Do you think HB would take it out on the customers as well? Or the Harrier, broken for 6-7 years, but eagerly releasing new modules, even announcing another harrier? The Atlantic map is also a performance disaster! Finally i have to speak it out: For me, Razbam, as a company, sucks! From my point of view, they can go to hell.
DCS is under a lot of scrutiny for a lot of good reasons. Eagle Dynamics attempt at an apology came way to late if we are honest. The thing with transparency is, that you have to be consistent. If you set targets, you have to meet them. Once or twice is understandable. When you have consistent delays, there is something wrong with the approach. Every single module has been delayed in some way. Not to mention the horrific public drama that is the RAZBAM situation. Telling us that you are sorry for the delay only goes so far. We as consumers understand that products aren't always going to meet deadlines, and that no plan survives first contact, but as mentioned before the issues are way to frequent. Casual users are leaving, hard core players are becoming increasingly frustrated. The discord channels all point to this. As mentioned previously, we all understand that issues come up, but this is just a horrible look now.
I’m not super knowledgeable on what is feasible for ED but I am just bothered by what they seem to focus on over other issues. They keep putting out new maps and new modules but haven’t ever updated their ATC AI. It would be awesome if there were an actual ATC and I think Falcon BMS has apparently done that better. Idk. There is definitely way too much whining from the spoiled DCS player base. At the end of the day, it is still just a simulator and it is far superior to Microsoft’s Flight Sim….which is crazy because Microsoft has so much money. So, in general I am proud and happy with what ED has done. PS: If you have a problem with performance, but new stuff for your PC….stop bothering ED about your crappy system not performing well enough. That’s a hot take I know.
And reference to people claiming the Kiowa was vaporware; in their defense, it took forever to get that module out. Took almost as long for Polychop to fix the gazelle. So ripping on Polychop and doubting the Kiowa will ever be released wasn’t without justification. Let’s not act like the claims that it had become vaporizer were without merit. I go back to my previous comment. Releasing a broken patch/module or delaying it ARENT the only 2 options. A third is actually giving yourself more time to complete a project than you think you will need. If you think it will take 3 weeks, give yourself 4. That way when you are doing final tests on the 21st day, you have time to fix things. Yet ED can’t seem to do this. EVERY module or major patch has been (and is) delayed multiple times. So yeah, it becomes a bit frustrating. Some people over react for sure, but we also shouldn’t just brush that aside and say “It’s software development and lots of things break other things”. Yeah, that’s true. So leave more time. ED has been doing this long enough to know that. It’s just like predicting ammunition expenditures in war. How many times do we have to learn that whatever amount of ammo you THINK you will need, you have to triple it and add 10%.
I led the charge in calling the 58D vaporware and I do not regret it. It was announced as soon then it took 3 years to release with little to no information coming out about it. Casmo and some other people got it for testing and made some videos and it sounded like it was coming out in a few months. Then...silence. Not even a screenshot. Then they started talking about updating the Gazelle(which it needed), and only said that some of the stuff they learned from the 58D would make its way into the Gazelle but nothing on the KW itself for another 8 months. The Bo-105 is in the same place now. A screen shot here and there but no real substantial news on it in months. And lets not forget the P-40 that was being worked on for DCS WWII that never even saw screenshots before it was cancelled.
The main issue with DCS to me is the haphazard way they build planesets/era/areas, we have nothing complete allowing us to simulate something "fully", everything has glaring gaps. All because of their obsession of being a hard core study sim / online arena and abandoning the lighter survey sim and single player aspect of it. The lack of dynamic campaign is also a major issue, after all these years.
If you’ve been around since pre 2.0 you know this has been coming sadly. The handing of the company to nick in 2018 was the real beginning of the end. You can call them conspiracy theories but the 7 million pounds that got funneled to TFC as the Apache was getting hyped to the moon or the payment issues with the F-14 and the admitted ponzi scheme to pay them through the rushed f-16 and now with 4 modules broken and 2 others delayed they drop FCS24? Living off of EA releases has caught up to them. I’m not a massive fan of RB (I own SA, the harrier and the F-15) but ED wouldn’t be playing this game that’s collapsing consumer trust right when all the big new modules are about to drop unless they had to. I also don’t think the RB dev team would have collapsed as fast as it did if there was actually any money to fight over. I’ve been waiting on the Kiowa, chinook, and c-130 since each “and beyond” trailer but I’m not spending anymore until I see the moneys not just going to war thunder lite or new warbirds for the family
@@Pricklyhedgehog72 My point is there is a mod that fixes it, bigger content creators such as yourself are very quiet. It’s on the F-15E subforum if you are unaware.
@@jdcoombs Thanks...I was unaware, the only noise I was hearing was the date roll back which is a blunt force instrument approach to resolving the issue.
I think the reason why they build a new launcher is separation of concerns. When you look in the files / code. Lots of UI elements are used and mixed with elements of the launcher. Sometimes generic UI Elements can hamper its progress to implement new features, speaking from experience.
The secracy as excuse for IA behavior is a poor one. BMS does a much better job at BVR IA tactics. Also the fact that IA flight models fly like Tie Fighter prevent any good BFM experience.
Prickly, you and other content creators are friends with ED. That's not a problem in itself, but you guys gotta recognize that ED and DCS are in a very bad place now. Maybe the proximity and access to ED's bosses help give them a feedback to see what is the real problem: ED overpromises and underdelivers. Time and time again. The Razbam issue just made things worse. ED promises a lot of hings, creates hype, announces a new product, people rush in to buy hoping they'll see a better product, but then they delay already announced features. And they do it time and time again. That's what makes the community go bananas and create conspiracy theories. An now they are releasing a bare bones Chinook . They've already have a huge technical debt and are only making it larger. In summary: ED has to fix their problems, and them, you and other content creators don't need to go the LucasArts way of blaming fans for Star Wars, or in this case, DCS faiilures. All this is on ED, and ED alone.
I don't feel this captures the state of things in a way that's entirely fair. I take your point in being closer to ED than the average consumer, not all of us are brand ambassadors and the closer you get the harder it is to be neutral or clinically objective. I try to be as objective as I can, I'm not being paid by ED, very rarely I might get access to something prior to its release to the general public. As for the products I think it's a little bit of both ways. ED has to make sales, so it's not reasonable to ask them to produce content that showcases mediocrity or indifference to the product being showcased. Any sales pitch is going to talk up the product, even if it's in early access and needs work. That's been their model for some time and consumers are always wanting more and new things. There's an expectation of getting your hands on an early access module with knowledge not all things are ready, and it amazes me people are shocked when things aren't in order. I agree ED can do better, but I don't see the position of the company is in anyway dire as people are making out. They still have some very, very good and popular modules. I've barely scratched the surface of many modules like the A-10C II and the F-16C. I've got a lot of hours in the Hornet and the Tomcat, and still I haven't mastered every weapon in the Hornet. I think they need to tackle areas of the AI and ATC functionality as a priority, which I think would go a long way to restoring faith in the system.
In short - DCS is in the poor state because you get overexcited and dont get your stuff in time. Huge issue, I get it - makes the game totally unplayable.
And now nobody is at all surprised that ED has dropped the ball AGAIN. This is just situation normal sadly. At least they did not release a game breaking update. Still no news of anything positive re Razbam, for my part, no resolution of this, wallet is closed. Great update as always Prickly.
Give ED a break please, they're small team and as such we can't expect miracles from them. Yes, I'd like to see dynamic campaign, new UI soon and possibly new game engine in the fnot too distant future but lets be realistic here. I believe ED employs around 190 workers atm and not all of them are working on DCS project. For comparison, Asobo alone has 850 ppl working on upcoming MSFS 2024.
Damn 190 employees and they release half baked aircraft compared to third party developers with like a team of less than 10? I’m assume you’re a newer player? I get what you mean though when it comes to the core but it’s not excusable anymore it’s been 15 years.
@@RW-zn8vy I've been buying & playing EDs stuff since Flanker and LOMAC times. I'm not defendending them, it's just that today's sim software development is very complicated and consumers expectations might be set too high. As I've written, I'll be dissapointed if AAA Asobo's MSFS 2024 fails as it's the greatest dev team ever created for a sim game , but we can't expect the same from ED half indi dev/publisher. I look at it this way, even companies full of cash like Lockeed Martin with it's Prepar3D fall short on their promises, so we shouldn't be too harsh on ED. Still I vote with my wallet. I don't like early access modules and maps so I don't buy them and now I'll probably restrain from buying any new module until we get long promised dynamic campaign.
@@rudlzavedno7279 you’re right but I think it falls on ED more than the players. Because they do announce things they’re working on and then it just disappears. The truth is I think the company just doesn’t have the funds. that’s the only explanation for everything. As you can see they’re more than capable of adding more maps and aircraft to the game. But nothing core wise because it won’t bring them any money in.
If anything, I know ED are trying to avoid any legal troubles if the sim was misused but really I dislike it wholesomely. If the goal is to create a simulator game than it must simulate to the best of our knowledge. Anything else would make it anything but a simulator. And the idea of a few bad actors ruining it for the rest of us is just upsetting. A very similar conversation happened in the early 2000s because the 9/11 hijackers used consumer simulators to practice their attack. If we followed this logic, we wouldn't have sims like MSFS2020 or Xplane12 today, which offer tremendous value to upcoming and established aviators. Likewise, Tencent is already producing proprietary flight simulators for domestic customers in China as is, and I have no doubt in my mind they have a military fork much like P3D. That alone essentially makes the whole point moot. Meanwhile, I think the sim should be developed to the best that it can be, with the information that is open and publicly available, without compromise.
I literally don't care at all about any DCS module or even patch delays while waiting for my Moza AB9 base. Flying with either the good old FFB2 (now, after the announcements from Moza, Virpil and WinWing dropped) or no FFB at all genuinely is futile.
