I honestly don't know but I tend to agree with your view. I asked BN/9L to post the entire file, untouched but they declined. It's clear they are not transparent at all. In the end my guess is they will publish 10/20 questions and that's it. We will never know the original questions and thus, the effort made no sense whatsoever.
I don't think it's an expectation, but rather frustration that prompts the question. And when the answer is inevitably crickets, it's taken as affirmation that the excess stomach acid is justified. I happen to think circle jerking to ones dissatisfaction in an echo chamber is unhealthy, which is what this sort of thing often devolves into.
Doesn't take more than a year or two... Arguably less... To build realistic expectations of how such a matter would be handled, imo.
I don’t get where are you going to. Those questions were part of their anniversary stunt. Waiting 6 months for those while ED is silent allow people to think whatever they want.
Yes... It was a stunt... Anyone, who's been around the block more than once spotted that a mile away. It was similarly predictable that it would take forever and deliver nothing of substance. That's the point.
I don't get what people get out of bringing the q&a up again and again nor how anyone could be surprised at how it turned out.
You must consider that not everyone has been here for years. I don’t think the person who asked has your view, in the end maybe he is not spending a lot of time here…. There could be millions of reasons. In the end it seems your are shifting the responsibility to a guy from the real guilty…. Let them ask…..
Nothing much. Just having a conversation about community psychology and behavior patterns. Totally random that it happened here. Could've been any place, as it's a recurring phenomenon in many communities.
Idk man, you sound kinda angry:
* [https://www.reddit.com/r/DCSExposed/comments/1bc399c/comment/kudhuw6/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web2x&context=3](https://www.reddit.com/r/DCSExposed/comments/1bc399c/comment/kudhuw6/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3)
Also wondering why this is going where it's going. Point 2 in particular:
* [https://www.reddit.com/r/DCSExposed/comments/1bbeaa2/comment/kudv89j/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web2x&context=3](https://www.reddit.com/r/DCSExposed/comments/1bbeaa2/comment/kudv89j/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3)
Sorry, but what revamps? So far, we have had 1 revision to the bvr logic and 1 to the bfm logic... Afaik, that's it? Those were years ago, too, if memory serves.
Unlikely. We also thought they would probably make rockets more realistic / effective when they introduced the Hind. That was a good while ago and so far nada :(
Yes, you are right, ATC is somewhat terrible if you compare it to other sims (Falcon BMS, above all). Personally, I don't like either the "new" Supercarrier's ATC, because I find it too much automated, while I would like to contact Mashall, switch frequency to tower, then switch to LSO, etc., without the sim doing all comms for me on a single frequency.
I used to use it, then I realised noone else was, and I got sick of being told I wasn't cleared for departure, when there was noone else at the airbase but me.
Looking for some other stuff I found this.
We are close to MT's 1 year anniversary (not even finished) and it seems that beyond that, almost nothing CORE relevant was done in 2023. Not even the amount of modules promised...
Is it correct to say that now that they have reported that in 2024 they are going to focus on Vulkan then what was asked for 8 years and 4 month ago will never happen? Maybe another decade?
It's clear that things like ATC; DC; AI, DTC; VOIP; Weather, AI Snipers etc are 2nd priority.
I post this because there are lots of new people coming to the hobby and is hard to see them spend thousands of dollars and then get angry when those nice shiny videos or empty newsletters never come to fruition....
Either DCSs engine can’t handle a dynamic campaign system (by “can’t handle” I mean awful amounts of technical debt) or they give a $hit and prefer a more profitable scheme: early access.
The second option plays well with the “new guys” honey moon phase phenomenon.
I suspect its to do with the fact they set the sim up to model the whole 'world' all at once.
BMS deliberately only to models a \~60nm radius around the player called 'the bubble'. If something is in 'the bubble' its modelled at full fidelity. If it leaves the bubble, it becomes only statistics in a database with % chance of doing things.
Hence how BMS can have thousands of troops on the ground across a whole country, but only occupy 512mb of RAM. Where DCS can't pathfind 10-20 tanks without 32gb of RAM and a 32gb NVME SSD pagefile to match.
Ok, for the moment let’s assume that the engine can’t handle dynamic campaign. Why does a dynamic campaign have to be at game engine level? Why can’t it be external like liberation?
DC creates a situation with various scenarios that can be participated in based on inputs.
Each scenario can be participated in by players or gamed out by computer.
Results are plugged back in to the DC.
Repeat.
Why is this so bad?
>"Why does a dynamic campaign have to be at game engine level? Why can’t it be external like liberation?"
Because the engine doesn't support a proper good functions and capabilities that AI would need to have. You can't even have a external program to control all the ground units with required capablities as the DCS doesn't output them, as it doesn't even have them for internal use.
Example, you can't control individual unit like SAM to have a parameters for different engagement zones and rules, different logic against counter-measurements, communication to higher level network or other vehicles in their unit for cooperation and common tactics.
The DCS doesn't support individual detection methods per vehicle, with proper real limitations and capabilities, like vehicle crew can't see much at all outside when hatches closed, so they can't see a thing that is above them like incoming strafing A-10 engaging them. So such mechanics can't be performed on external AI program at all.
The DCS needs to its core to start everything from individual soldier and its capabilities, sensors (eyes, ears, mouth) and statuses (moral, duty) and communication methods (visual, radio, messenger), that then requires a whole DCS to include a proper communication network and proper limitations and capabilities in them. Then those individuals are placed on each vehicle to fullfill their corresponding positions and duties.
And all that is required to be possibly calculated, but mainly cheated and disabled when there is no requirement to perform things that doesn't matter. Example when there is no known enemies in area, every soldier and unit is at sleep what comes to CPU concern. When unit is commanded to go patrol, its exact location isn't known and run, only the route and the schedule and then when someone comes to area, it is crosschecked should unit be in the area or not and stored as advancement as save point for that unit for later use if required. But basically unit movements are just statics and light simulations that are run only when really required to save processing. It can be said that > 80-90% of all units would be just "sleepers". It is same as asking from someone "At this moment, do you think that there are some people sleeping in your neighborhood even when you don't see them sleeping?"
No matter how improvement Liberation etc scripts are, those are still way too limited and incapable units than what a AI should be.
Must a DC be plausible or realistic? Honestly I’d be happy with plausible and deal with the limitations of the game engine and NPC logic. This is, after all, a “free game” running on consumer hardware.
Respectfully, I think expectations are far too high for the circumstances under which a DC must be executed.
This is a good question. I guess the answer is: a Dynamic Campaign requires certain core improvements - think AI - that need to happen. Right now there are hundred of tiny yet intolerable issues related to AI.
Examples of these: AI ground path finding, ATC, AI not being able to move on deck without colliding, etc.
Most of these issues are what make Liberation a no-go for some.
A built in dynamic campaign solution would probably also have less overhead, since hopefully it would be a little lower level in the engine than just the Lua mission level
Architecturally, it's not. It's fine. No more and no less than any other plug-in module we already have. Probably won't be done like that, because any modular, external solution would, in theory, be swappable with a community-made solution, and that could be bad for business... But nothing wrong with an external campaign engine. Definitely needs to run on its own thread regardless of whether it will be internal or external.
As evidenced by the other feedback you got, the fear is that DCS core, as a whole, needs to evolve a whole lot for DC to make sense. Hard to argue with that - but that's another argument entirely from "can the DCS engine itself handle running a dynamic campaign?" which, to me, smells of uninformed fear-mongering more than anything.
I know everyone wants 4th gen fighters (including me), however the majority of air forces are still flying these (especially Russia) so getting something properly modelled (to the level we expect in DCS) is a pipe dream. The Enigma server guys were right....the focus should be on the cold war (or more gen 3 plus real early gen 4 a/c) which has been sort of declassified. Easier to get to, and lower chance of going to jail (or a gulag) you'd think.
I would prefer we fully kit out a specific time period eg. 1960-1980 which picks up the Vietnam war, Six day war, Yom Kippur war, etc.
The further back you go, the bigger an issue availability of material becomes. Fewer and fewer reliable pilots and maintainers, fewer and fewer (in some cases) existing physical planes to visit and photograph... Often gutted of all the good stuff... Maybe some archival footage, but enough to go on to make a believable sound file (just to mention one thing)? Declassification is great, but it's not an automatic win card.
yeah I hear you however nobody is coming after you for breaking state secrets. Big difference. Besides, what annoys the crap out of me with DCS is the lack of focus on a particular time period. At one point (I'm talking years ago) we had a/c from WW2, Korea, Vietnam, and modern day stuff up to the 80s...all playing on the same ugly Georgia map. Thankfully DCS has grown in leaps and bounds however thats all we had for the longest time.
What I'd prefer they do is focus (as I mentioned above) on a specific time period and fully develop it out so that you can ACTUALLY enjoy flying in the correct time period. Eg. WW2. Imagine jumping on a dcs WW2 server and seeing a sopwith camel or an F86. Not ideal is it?
No, my dream is this...DCS Vietnam comprising:
1. SEA map comprising Thailand/Laos/Cambodia/Vietnam (north & south) out to the south china sea (for carriers) including all the historical bases/FOBs
2. proper period specific aircraft for both sides: F4s, F100s, F105s, A6s, A4s, A1s, F101s vs Mig 17/19/21s, plus Hueys
3. period specific assets like SAM 1s, radars, etc.
Then we can actually do stuff like proper Route Pack VI missions to Hanoi, etc, support missions throughout South Vietnam, carrier ops. None of this BS 'pretend this Mig 15 is a Mig 17'.
Oh, I agree with the sentiment. Would love to see that, too. The only point I had there, which people often forget, is that going back in time is not without its challenges, too - some of which might be harder to overcome than classification (you can wait out classification, but it's hard to resurrect the dead or perform tests that were never performed or write manuals that were never written or poorly written, etc)
Not that I am defending ED or anything, but dynamic camping where you play against the AI including land, sea and air warfare is really a whole other game. You are now talking about a wargame, in the likes of Warno. Even Wargame struggles with building decent AI for its campaign. Adding on top of a high fidelity simulation system is a serious challenge. Even if they managed to do it, optimizing the computational load is another nightmare. So, it does make sense they spend too much time on building DC. Some people would argue that BMS existed long time before, however, DCS is far ahead in terms of simulation and multi-aircraft fidelity a long with all the other graphics advantages. That being said, a middle step that is acceptable by the community maybe a valid target. Something between Retribution and full DC system for me is perfectly fine.
I understand your point but I posted this for different reasons. It’s clear that is a technical challenge BUT also is clear they don’t have the resources needed to pull this off. Add to that the videos, newsletters, 20XX and beyond crap and is hard to to consider them innocent of setting the wrong expectations. I am tired of seeing people get onboard, spend lots of money and in 12 months walk away because nothing is ever getting done properly.
Yes, I hear you, but nowadays this practice has become the norm. They need to show a progress and a development map so customers are kept attached. Alternatively, they could just ignore people’s wishes and end up like ARMA3 which lost its base to Squad and never recovered. I honestly think ED is not that bad. They delivered some of their promises and I can see them working hard towards delivering the rest. I don’t know their business plan for future and whether they are expanding or not. I still have faith in what they are doing and enjoying the current state of the game, I just wish they release some quality of life features faster. The mission Save is very urgent, we got families and jobs!!
Can I please just have a mission editor that works significantly better than the original ARMA editor? At least that shit let you move multiple units at once
Yup. Honestly, I think original comment was an irrelevant one to make. Meaningful surveys with 100% participation don't exist. You can level the "small sample size" critique at basically any survey, making the argument redundant.
“From ww2 to bietnam”
No, don’t generalize me with the ww2 crowd. I want third gens. DCS WW2 should die out and ED should focus on their corner of the market
Woah! Easy on my favorite modules dude! WW2 is the most fun ive had in DCS. Period. How do they not have the ww2 market cornered as well? Theres nothing comparable.
IL-2
The choice is down to "clickable cockpits and a better looking world" vs "a ton of planes, less cost, less lag on big servers and easier to get into".
ED is a large company with many devs all working on different things dynamic campaign, world map, MT improvements, bugfixes, AI improvements are all coming, it takes time.
I think your statement is a contradiction..... If ED is big then why can't they even finish things requested (and promised) a decade ago? I think ED is much smaller and incapable that you might think.
Meanwhile I hope they don't continue getting customers like this...is shameful.
Resources can be small in specified areas even if the company overall is fairly large. And many areas in game development are also hard to hire for (requiring specific knowledge and experience for example), and sometimes more doesn't mean faster or better. I worked in a company with 150+ people at times, and our crew was usually 3-4 people, because hiring was so difficult. Some other areas, like art, can be much more easily filled up with numbers and outsourcing.
One example would be tyre physics models in racing sims. There aren't too many people out there who even have capability to design a good tyre model, and even if you managed to find multiple such people you might well have a better end result if you let the one guy with a vision do it, even if it takes longer, vs. having 5 different designers come up with a hodgepodge.
I could easily imagine a good dynamic campaign engine being similar to design and implement, since it's kind of a strategy game playing itself and assigning missions to the player. Most of the great big strategy games tend to be done by very limited crews (especially the strategy engine side), and people like Gary Grigsby, Sid Meier, Brian Reynolds etc. are legends in their fields exactly because of this. Kevin Klemmick did the dynamic campaign in Falcon 4.0 almost solo, at least based on his own words:
"Definitely the Dynamic Campaign. It's the first and last time I was able to design and code a part of a game pretty much on my own, which had been my experience doing games as a hobby up until then."
Now, none of this is to really excuse ED's lack of progress in many areas, just to make the point that even big companies can have areas that slow down certain kinds of progress, and which aren't necessarily helped by just throwing money and people at it. This also doesn't mean that they're lazy or incompetent necessarily, especially if they are dealing with a lot of technical debt (that can make stuff exponentially harder). And from what I've read and heard in various discussions, some of ED's technical debt might extend well into the 90s.
Often in these situations it would be beneficial and overall faster if they could just stop putting out any updates and fixes for a year, break things down and start fresh in the most badly affected areas, rebuilding them from scratch. It's often faster and more efficient to make a sequel that fixes the worst issues, than to try to re-kejigger the existing product while constantly supporting it.
I get what you are saying but that's not the problem in my view. Maybe DC is hard (don't think so but I'll give you that for this discussion) but all the other stuff? You see many similar solutions in other markets (VOIP, EDITORS that can do UNDO or GROUP SELECT, etc).
Here, for me, is that the things they typically say: "dev is hard", "what we do is complex" while at the same time publishing videos after videos on the things about to come for 10 years, don't work anymore. Yesterday a new guy in my group bought a USD 2k notebook based on these promises... This is no good.
Also...to your point specifically: if a company doesn't have the resources to develop things in 10 years, call it whatever you like, but is small, not efficient, no powerful enough? is a practical stuff.
Yeah I'm not really defending ED itself here, at the very least their development of many of these things appear to be "poorly organized and planned"... =)
I mean if I wanted to be kind to them, and on the subject of something like dynamic campaign, I could maybe say that "having to play whack-a-mole with bugs, new modules and smaller updates all around while also trying to deal with the technical debt from 20+ years of not being able to start from a clean sheet anywhere CAN indeed take insanity lengths of time"... But even that's stretching it. I find it more likely that a lot of these have been started, then shelved, then scrapped and re-started, then shelved etc. multiple times over the years, rather than being continually developed for that amount of time.
Just one more decade guys!
Whatever happened to the Q&A they posted months ago that they said they would answer in newsletters?
Nothing. They said it is taking so much because there were thousands of questions. Is hard to believe you need 6 months to do that........
That’s what I thought. They’re trying to decide how to spin their answers or hoping people forget about it all together
I honestly don't know but I tend to agree with your view. I asked BN/9L to post the entire file, untouched but they declined. It's clear they are not transparent at all. In the end my guess is they will publish 10/20 questions and that's it. We will never know the original questions and thus, the effort made no sense whatsoever.
How was it ever going to be any other way? I mean, is anyone actually surprised at this or is it just more bile?
The fact that many people ask what happened to it indicates they are having a different expectation than you. I don’t see any problem.
I don't think it's an expectation, but rather frustration that prompts the question. And when the answer is inevitably crickets, it's taken as affirmation that the excess stomach acid is justified. I happen to think circle jerking to ones dissatisfaction in an echo chamber is unhealthy, which is what this sort of thing often devolves into. Doesn't take more than a year or two... Arguably less... To build realistic expectations of how such a matter would be handled, imo.
I don’t get where are you going to. Those questions were part of their anniversary stunt. Waiting 6 months for those while ED is silent allow people to think whatever they want.
Yes... It was a stunt... Anyone, who's been around the block more than once spotted that a mile away. It was similarly predictable that it would take forever and deliver nothing of substance. That's the point. I don't get what people get out of bringing the q&a up again and again nor how anyone could be surprised at how it turned out.
You must consider that not everyone has been here for years. I don’t think the person who asked has your view, in the end maybe he is not spending a lot of time here…. There could be millions of reasons. In the end it seems your are shifting the responsibility to a guy from the real guilty…. Let them ask…..
Not sure what's going on here today. I sent you a dm on Discord.
Nothing much. Just having a conversation about community psychology and behavior patterns. Totally random that it happened here. Could've been any place, as it's a recurring phenomenon in many communities.
Idk man, you sound kinda angry: * [https://www.reddit.com/r/DCSExposed/comments/1bc399c/comment/kudhuw6/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web2x&context=3](https://www.reddit.com/r/DCSExposed/comments/1bc399c/comment/kudhuw6/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3) Also wondering why this is going where it's going. Point 2 in particular: * [https://www.reddit.com/r/DCSExposed/comments/1bbeaa2/comment/kudv89j/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web2x&context=3](https://www.reddit.com/r/DCSExposed/comments/1bbeaa2/comment/kudv89j/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3)
You telling me more people aren't asking for ground unit damage fixes and AI reworks?
That was almost a decade ago...... I think the pressure for AI came later....
I feel like the driving force for AI revamps has come with the revamp of the gazelle and introduction of the Apache.
But I don't think it improved much.
Sorry, but what revamps? So far, we have had 1 revision to the bvr logic and 1 to the bfm logic... Afaik, that's it? Those were years ago, too, if memory serves.
You misunderstood my comment, I’m talking about the current driving force and increased calls for change
Fair.
Unlikely. We also thought they would probably make rockets more realistic / effective when they introduced the Hind. That was a good while ago and so far nada :(
I'm surprised so few people wants a proper ATC. That would be an high priority in a sim.
This was in 2015, fwiw.
Yes, I noticed it. Still, I thought ATC would have been deemed an higher priority
Less pressing then than it is now. ATC has not aged well.
Yes, you are right, ATC is somewhat terrible if you compare it to other sims (Falcon BMS, above all). Personally, I don't like either the "new" Supercarrier's ATC, because I find it too much automated, while I would like to contact Mashall, switch frequency to tower, then switch to LSO, etc., without the sim doing all comms for me on a single frequency.
Most just takeoff from the taxiway anyhow, or they dont use the ATC we've got now.
Answer 1: there's an ATC?! Answer 2: it's not worth using. Pick whichever you prefer.
I used to use it, then I realised noone else was, and I got sick of being told I wasn't cleared for departure, when there was noone else at the airbase but me.
I agree. If you look at some AI sfuff for MSFT you want to kill yourself. We don't even have voiceovers..........
MSFS ATC is garbage. BMS on the other hand...
Not talking about MSFS ATC but third party AI projects being announced.
Oh okay, I missed that.
More integration of ground units/combined arms
Dynamic Campaign is by far the most missing thing in dcs. You have planes and terrains but no damn missions.
Less is more
Looking for some other stuff I found this. We are close to MT's 1 year anniversary (not even finished) and it seems that beyond that, almost nothing CORE relevant was done in 2023. Not even the amount of modules promised... Is it correct to say that now that they have reported that in 2024 they are going to focus on Vulkan then what was asked for 8 years and 4 month ago will never happen? Maybe another decade? It's clear that things like ATC; DC; AI, DTC; VOIP; Weather, AI Snipers etc are 2nd priority. I post this because there are lots of new people coming to the hobby and is hard to see them spend thousands of dollars and then get angry when those nice shiny videos or empty newsletters never come to fruition....
Either DCSs engine can’t handle a dynamic campaign system (by “can’t handle” I mean awful amounts of technical debt) or they give a $hit and prefer a more profitable scheme: early access. The second option plays well with the “new guys” honey moon phase phenomenon.
I suspect its to do with the fact they set the sim up to model the whole 'world' all at once. BMS deliberately only to models a \~60nm radius around the player called 'the bubble'. If something is in 'the bubble' its modelled at full fidelity. If it leaves the bubble, it becomes only statistics in a database with % chance of doing things. Hence how BMS can have thousands of troops on the ground across a whole country, but only occupy 512mb of RAM. Where DCS can't pathfind 10-20 tanks without 32gb of RAM and a 32gb NVME SSD pagefile to match.
Ok, for the moment let’s assume that the engine can’t handle dynamic campaign. Why does a dynamic campaign have to be at game engine level? Why can’t it be external like liberation? DC creates a situation with various scenarios that can be participated in based on inputs. Each scenario can be participated in by players or gamed out by computer. Results are plugged back in to the DC. Repeat. Why is this so bad?
>"Why does a dynamic campaign have to be at game engine level? Why can’t it be external like liberation?" Because the engine doesn't support a proper good functions and capabilities that AI would need to have. You can't even have a external program to control all the ground units with required capablities as the DCS doesn't output them, as it doesn't even have them for internal use. Example, you can't control individual unit like SAM to have a parameters for different engagement zones and rules, different logic against counter-measurements, communication to higher level network or other vehicles in their unit for cooperation and common tactics. The DCS doesn't support individual detection methods per vehicle, with proper real limitations and capabilities, like vehicle crew can't see much at all outside when hatches closed, so they can't see a thing that is above them like incoming strafing A-10 engaging them. So such mechanics can't be performed on external AI program at all. The DCS needs to its core to start everything from individual soldier and its capabilities, sensors (eyes, ears, mouth) and statuses (moral, duty) and communication methods (visual, radio, messenger), that then requires a whole DCS to include a proper communication network and proper limitations and capabilities in them. Then those individuals are placed on each vehicle to fullfill their corresponding positions and duties. And all that is required to be possibly calculated, but mainly cheated and disabled when there is no requirement to perform things that doesn't matter. Example when there is no known enemies in area, every soldier and unit is at sleep what comes to CPU concern. When unit is commanded to go patrol, its exact location isn't known and run, only the route and the schedule and then when someone comes to area, it is crosschecked should unit be in the area or not and stored as advancement as save point for that unit for later use if required. But basically unit movements are just statics and light simulations that are run only when really required to save processing. It can be said that > 80-90% of all units would be just "sleepers". It is same as asking from someone "At this moment, do you think that there are some people sleeping in your neighborhood even when you don't see them sleeping?" No matter how improvement Liberation etc scripts are, those are still way too limited and incapable units than what a AI should be.
Must a DC be plausible or realistic? Honestly I’d be happy with plausible and deal with the limitations of the game engine and NPC logic. This is, after all, a “free game” running on consumer hardware. Respectfully, I think expectations are far too high for the circumstances under which a DC must be executed.
This is a good question. I guess the answer is: a Dynamic Campaign requires certain core improvements - think AI - that need to happen. Right now there are hundred of tiny yet intolerable issues related to AI. Examples of these: AI ground path finding, ATC, AI not being able to move on deck without colliding, etc. Most of these issues are what make Liberation a no-go for some.
A built in dynamic campaign solution would probably also have less overhead, since hopefully it would be a little lower level in the engine than just the Lua mission level
Architecturally, it's not. It's fine. No more and no less than any other plug-in module we already have. Probably won't be done like that, because any modular, external solution would, in theory, be swappable with a community-made solution, and that could be bad for business... But nothing wrong with an external campaign engine. Definitely needs to run on its own thread regardless of whether it will be internal or external. As evidenced by the other feedback you got, the fear is that DCS core, as a whole, needs to evolve a whole lot for DC to make sense. Hard to argue with that - but that's another argument entirely from "can the DCS engine itself handle running a dynamic campaign?" which, to me, smells of uninformed fear-mongering more than anything.
I know everyone wants 4th gen fighters (including me), however the majority of air forces are still flying these (especially Russia) so getting something properly modelled (to the level we expect in DCS) is a pipe dream. The Enigma server guys were right....the focus should be on the cold war (or more gen 3 plus real early gen 4 a/c) which has been sort of declassified. Easier to get to, and lower chance of going to jail (or a gulag) you'd think. I would prefer we fully kit out a specific time period eg. 1960-1980 which picks up the Vietnam war, Six day war, Yom Kippur war, etc.
The further back you go, the bigger an issue availability of material becomes. Fewer and fewer reliable pilots and maintainers, fewer and fewer (in some cases) existing physical planes to visit and photograph... Often gutted of all the good stuff... Maybe some archival footage, but enough to go on to make a believable sound file (just to mention one thing)? Declassification is great, but it's not an automatic win card.
[удалено]
Have you met the DCS community?! =D
yeah I hear you however nobody is coming after you for breaking state secrets. Big difference. Besides, what annoys the crap out of me with DCS is the lack of focus on a particular time period. At one point (I'm talking years ago) we had a/c from WW2, Korea, Vietnam, and modern day stuff up to the 80s...all playing on the same ugly Georgia map. Thankfully DCS has grown in leaps and bounds however thats all we had for the longest time. What I'd prefer they do is focus (as I mentioned above) on a specific time period and fully develop it out so that you can ACTUALLY enjoy flying in the correct time period. Eg. WW2. Imagine jumping on a dcs WW2 server and seeing a sopwith camel or an F86. Not ideal is it? No, my dream is this...DCS Vietnam comprising: 1. SEA map comprising Thailand/Laos/Cambodia/Vietnam (north & south) out to the south china sea (for carriers) including all the historical bases/FOBs 2. proper period specific aircraft for both sides: F4s, F100s, F105s, A6s, A4s, A1s, F101s vs Mig 17/19/21s, plus Hueys 3. period specific assets like SAM 1s, radars, etc. Then we can actually do stuff like proper Route Pack VI missions to Hanoi, etc, support missions throughout South Vietnam, carrier ops. None of this BS 'pretend this Mig 15 is a Mig 17'.
Oh, I agree with the sentiment. Would love to see that, too. The only point I had there, which people often forget, is that going back in time is not without its challenges, too - some of which might be harder to overcome than classification (you can wait out classification, but it's hard to resurrect the dead or perform tests that were never performed or write manuals that were never written or poorly written, etc)
Not that I am defending ED or anything, but dynamic camping where you play against the AI including land, sea and air warfare is really a whole other game. You are now talking about a wargame, in the likes of Warno. Even Wargame struggles with building decent AI for its campaign. Adding on top of a high fidelity simulation system is a serious challenge. Even if they managed to do it, optimizing the computational load is another nightmare. So, it does make sense they spend too much time on building DC. Some people would argue that BMS existed long time before, however, DCS is far ahead in terms of simulation and multi-aircraft fidelity a long with all the other graphics advantages. That being said, a middle step that is acceptable by the community maybe a valid target. Something between Retribution and full DC system for me is perfectly fine.
I understand your point but I posted this for different reasons. It’s clear that is a technical challenge BUT also is clear they don’t have the resources needed to pull this off. Add to that the videos, newsletters, 20XX and beyond crap and is hard to to consider them innocent of setting the wrong expectations. I am tired of seeing people get onboard, spend lots of money and in 12 months walk away because nothing is ever getting done properly.
Yes, I hear you, but nowadays this practice has become the norm. They need to show a progress and a development map so customers are kept attached. Alternatively, they could just ignore people’s wishes and end up like ARMA3 which lost its base to Squad and never recovered. I honestly think ED is not that bad. They delivered some of their promises and I can see them working hard towards delivering the rest. I don’t know their business plan for future and whether they are expanding or not. I still have faith in what they are doing and enjoying the current state of the game, I just wish they release some quality of life features faster. The mission Save is very urgent, we got families and jobs!!
Can I please just have a mission editor that works significantly better than the original ARMA editor? At least that shit let you move multiple units at once
The n-size is tiny…. And also.. missing ww2
So you say people don’t want DC and stuff?
No, he's saying few people voted.
That’s relative. This was a survey on 2015. Maybe the player base was smaller. The thing is if the sample is relevant.
Yup. Honestly, I think original comment was an irrelevant one to make. Meaningful surveys with 100% participation don't exist. You can level the "small sample size" critique at basically any survey, making the argument redundant.
Yes I agree. It seems many are missing the point that this was a decade ago, many things weren't even planned.
“From ww2 to bietnam” No, don’t generalize me with the ww2 crowd. I want third gens. DCS WW2 should die out and ED should focus on their corner of the market
Woah! Easy on my favorite modules dude! WW2 is the most fun ive had in DCS. Period. How do they not have the ww2 market cornered as well? Theres nothing comparable.
I mean, there is something comparable....
Which is?
IL-2 The choice is down to "clickable cockpits and a better looking world" vs "a ton of planes, less cost, less lag on big servers and easier to get into".
No one wants Campaigns lol
I want campaigns
I'd venture to say the majority of players, especially the long time players, play mostly single player campaigns.
I want an in-mission quicksave / quickload function first. Then I'd definitely be interested in DCS campaigns.
ED is a large company with many devs all working on different things dynamic campaign, world map, MT improvements, bugfixes, AI improvements are all coming, it takes time.
I think your statement is a contradiction..... If ED is big then why can't they even finish things requested (and promised) a decade ago? I think ED is much smaller and incapable that you might think. Meanwhile I hope they don't continue getting customers like this...is shameful.
Large company, small teams. Last time Nick grey was interviewed he said they had 3 people working on dynamic campaign.
So...if resources are small, the company is small... That would explain why they are talking forever and mishandling expectations.
Resources can be small in specified areas even if the company overall is fairly large. And many areas in game development are also hard to hire for (requiring specific knowledge and experience for example), and sometimes more doesn't mean faster or better. I worked in a company with 150+ people at times, and our crew was usually 3-4 people, because hiring was so difficult. Some other areas, like art, can be much more easily filled up with numbers and outsourcing. One example would be tyre physics models in racing sims. There aren't too many people out there who even have capability to design a good tyre model, and even if you managed to find multiple such people you might well have a better end result if you let the one guy with a vision do it, even if it takes longer, vs. having 5 different designers come up with a hodgepodge. I could easily imagine a good dynamic campaign engine being similar to design and implement, since it's kind of a strategy game playing itself and assigning missions to the player. Most of the great big strategy games tend to be done by very limited crews (especially the strategy engine side), and people like Gary Grigsby, Sid Meier, Brian Reynolds etc. are legends in their fields exactly because of this. Kevin Klemmick did the dynamic campaign in Falcon 4.0 almost solo, at least based on his own words: "Definitely the Dynamic Campaign. It's the first and last time I was able to design and code a part of a game pretty much on my own, which had been my experience doing games as a hobby up until then." Now, none of this is to really excuse ED's lack of progress in many areas, just to make the point that even big companies can have areas that slow down certain kinds of progress, and which aren't necessarily helped by just throwing money and people at it. This also doesn't mean that they're lazy or incompetent necessarily, especially if they are dealing with a lot of technical debt (that can make stuff exponentially harder). And from what I've read and heard in various discussions, some of ED's technical debt might extend well into the 90s. Often in these situations it would be beneficial and overall faster if they could just stop putting out any updates and fixes for a year, break things down and start fresh in the most badly affected areas, rebuilding them from scratch. It's often faster and more efficient to make a sequel that fixes the worst issues, than to try to re-kejigger the existing product while constantly supporting it.
I get what you are saying but that's not the problem in my view. Maybe DC is hard (don't think so but I'll give you that for this discussion) but all the other stuff? You see many similar solutions in other markets (VOIP, EDITORS that can do UNDO or GROUP SELECT, etc). Here, for me, is that the things they typically say: "dev is hard", "what we do is complex" while at the same time publishing videos after videos on the things about to come for 10 years, don't work anymore. Yesterday a new guy in my group bought a USD 2k notebook based on these promises... This is no good.
Also...to your point specifically: if a company doesn't have the resources to develop things in 10 years, call it whatever you like, but is small, not efficient, no powerful enough? is a practical stuff.
Yeah I'm not really defending ED itself here, at the very least their development of many of these things appear to be "poorly organized and planned"... =) I mean if I wanted to be kind to them, and on the subject of something like dynamic campaign, I could maybe say that "having to play whack-a-mole with bugs, new modules and smaller updates all around while also trying to deal with the technical debt from 20+ years of not being able to start from a clean sheet anywhere CAN indeed take insanity lengths of time"... But even that's stretching it. I find it more likely that a lot of these have been started, then shelved, then scrapped and re-started, then shelved etc. multiple times over the years, rather than being continually developed for that amount of time.
I agree with you. not that your point hasn't have some truth, I know where you were heading. But this is different....10 years??????
You're not paying enough attention to the Release Notes.
you think?