Jump to content

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Arthur-A said:

With no real benefits from that complexity.

 

False - stay in your lane.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Arthur-A said:


I hope they'll start releasing more WWII modules with Flaming Cliffs level of detailization with more flyable planes and with the focus on a certain theater. I'd ditch BoX completely for that. Not that I play BoX frequently, tbh. Bodenplatte was a huge red pill for me. It's a pity that I already bought BoN and Hurricanes before that.

 

DCS and "focus" go together like oil and water 😂 I wouldn't hold my breath on them focusing on anything, ED's only modus operandi is to sell as many early access products as possible to keep the lights on for a few more weeks, thinking they'll actually ever finish something or make a consistent theater to the level of any of the BoX releases is a pipe dream, Never. Going. To. Happen.

 

Serious question though, what exactly from Bodenplatte got people's feathers so ruffled? It brought some of the most popular later war aircraft into BoX, kinda confused how this would turn off someone who supposedly was already a fan of the sim series especially to the point of regretting pre-ordering BoN 🤔

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Arthur-A said:

Whatever you say.

 

;)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, DBFlyguy said:

Serious question though, what exactly from Bodenplatte got people's feathers so ruffled? It brought some of the most popular later war aircraft into BoX, kinda confused how this would turn off someone who supposedly was already a fan of the sim series especially to the point of regretting pre-ordering BoN 🤔

Horrible map, horrible P-47 (Compare it to the DCS one), dull career, etc etc.

  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, LukeFF said:

 One of the things he talked about was how their mission editor was too complex for new users and how they want to simplify things, so that it doesn't take days for people to be able to start creating their own missions.

 

The fact that DCS mission maker is "too complex for new users"  not necessarily implicates that have the same level of complexity of IL-2:GB editor.

The key word there is "new users", those want a 3 clicks mission maker. 😁

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, =RS=Stix_09 said:

 

They also need to work on spotting , its very difficult in DCS currently

This is a huge issue. 

5 hours ago, DBFlyguy said:

 

DCS and "focus" go together like oil and water 😂 I wouldn't hold my breath on them focusing on anything, ED's only modus operandi is to sell as many early access products as possible to keep the lights on for a few more weeks, thinking they'll actually ever finish something or make a consistent theater to the level of any of the BoX releases is a pipe dream, Never. Going. To. Happen.

 

Serious question though, what exactly from Bodenplatte got people's feathers so ruffled? It brought some of the most popular later war aircraft into BoX, kinda confused how this would turn off someone who supposedly was already a fan of the sim series especially to the point of regretting pre-ordering BoN 🤔

It is a hotrod module to boost sale. Making that map a huge dogfight server. Forcing everybody that want to do other stuff than dogfight to fly low and heavy right in to a set up trap. 
Bon is the same. Only obsolete level bombers with simplified bombaim interface. My curiosity to mossie,  tiffy and ME 410 is the only reason I bought it. 
I am confident these packs draw new customers, so it is not wrong by devs, it is wrong for me, but look at YT. And you see endless dogfight videos. 
A game with seldom occurrence of Airbattle in depth. It is designed for people liking to wait for easy pray

Edited by 216th_LuseKofte
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Sokol1 said:

 

The fact that DCS mission maker is "too complex for new users"  not necessarily implicates that have the same level of complexity of IL-2:GB editor.

The key word there is "new users", those want a 3 clicks mission maker. 😁

In fact. I am all for simple use, but simplifying bring a bit of fear in me. Looking at GB , that is designed for getting WT flyers in, and in many ways did not take old simmers into consideration. 
If ED are on the same track, I fear for my own interest in it. Hopefully that is just a bollix consern

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, LukeFF said:

So yeah, I don't buy the argument that IL2's mission editor is somehow overly complex in comparison to DCS's, especially when it seems like it's the same few people telling us repeatedly that it takes a Master's degree to understand how it works.

 

The DCS mission editior, as complex as it may be, far more accessible than what is included in BoX. Far more. At least to me. Not just by the fact that you can launch it within the game. It doesn‘t take too long to position your units such that you can have a simple mission as you have envisioned it. The old IL2 had a simple mission builder that was equally straight forward to use, despite the added functionality.

 

I undestand that creating a logically consistent AND intuitive mission designer a huge task, something that has a hard time to get justification for earning a production slot, as there is seemingly no direct revenue associated to it. But I consider it a key factor for keeping people interested.

 

We have some very creative and talented people as user base, hence you can set the bar incredibly high and many still will be able to make great use of the game. As for the rest, it is more like, „here, eat your dog food“. It is almost a tragedy that the user base of high fidelity combat sims is that literate both in knowledge about the content as in content creation. As a publisher, you just get away with almost anying as long as the quality of the content (which is enough of a problem in itself) meets expectations. But living in this bubble will ward off any new player that has little idea about the whole thing. Think of someone reading about these aircraft and wants to simulate not just the combat as such, but the mission he read about. Right now, he realistically can‘t as he wouldn’t bother. With the old IL2, this was straight forward to do. You opened that one and you got your functions where you expected them and in a logical sequence. It was a great tool to make basic missions.

 

I used to make a lot of missions in the old IL2. I do also in DCS but there more to learn an aircraft and the necessity for getting suitable environments for that. But GB, that editor has written all over it „look this is not for you and we gave it to you just because you asked“. So I don‘t use it. Limiting the way people can make use of a combat sim hurts the game as a whole. It makes it less interesting. I find it especially tragic for GB, as this one has all the ingredients that make it a very good game.

 

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone who has spent any time in the both the dcs editor and the Great Battles editor knows that the dcs editor is way way way more easier to use. Thats a simple undeniable fact.

 

Anyone who says otherwise, their opinion is so clouded and blantantly false, that they are a joke.

  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ZachariasX said:

 

The DCS mission editior, as complex as it may be, far more accessible than what is included in BoX. Far more. At least to me. Not just by the fact that you can launch it within the game. It doesn‘t take too long to position your units such that you can have a simple mission as you have envisioned it. The old IL2 had a simple mission builder that was equally straight forward to use, despite the added functionality.

 

I undestand that creating a logically consistent AND intuitive mission designer a huge task, something that has a hard time to get justification for earning a production slot, as there is seemingly no direct revenue associated to it. But I consider it a key factor for keeping people interested.

 

We have some very creative and talented people as user base, hence you can set the bar incredibly high and many still will be able to make great use of the game. As for the rest, it is more like, „here, eat your dog food“. It is almost a tragedy that the user base of high fidelity combat sims is that literate both in knowledge about the content as in content creation. As a publisher, you just get away with almost anying as long as the quality of the content (which is enough of a problem in itself) meets expectations. But living in this bubble will ward off any new player that has little idea about the whole thing. Think of someone reading about these aircraft and wants to simulate not just the combat as such, but the mission he read about. Right now, he realistically can‘t as he wouldn’t bother. With the old IL2, this was straight forward to do. You opened that one and you got your functions where you expected them and in a logical sequence. It was a great tool to make basic missions.

 

I used to make a lot of missions in the old IL2. I do also in DCS but there more to learn an aircraft and the necessity for getting suitable environments for that. But GB, that editor has written all over it „look this is not for you and we gave it to you just because you asked“. So I don‘t use it. Limiting the way people can make use of a combat sim hurts the game as a whole. It makes it less interesting. I find it especially tragic for GB, as this one has all the ingredients that make it a very good game.

 

 

Exactly!

 

Some of the guys here have been super friendly and very patient when it comes to helping others learn how to manage the BoX ME. Even I have managed to put a plane in the air and a tank on the ground with their help. But every time I think I might give it a go again, and open the editor, and then see that the map doesn't even have the buildings and bridges on it, I have to load them myself... "click"... close program.

 

In DCS I can be flying around, and think "Hey, I like this flight, but I want to try out a rocket on a tank, and I want that tank to be right there beside that building", I can put it together in seconds and try the flight out. Then it's "Okay, now I want some AAA over there to make it a bit more interesting", and super fast I've got it done and I'm back flying in my scenario. And on and on. You can literally build the flight as you're flying it. I really enjoy that.

 

Creative control that doesn't keep me waiting. I want it and my money goes to whoever gives it to me. 

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, DD_fruitbat said:

Anyone who says otherwise, their opinion is so clouded and blantantly false, that they are a joke.

 

Instead of throwing insults around, why don't you listen to the interview yourself?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think on the question „what is (too) complex“ context is key. At least to me, it is obvious that without the mission editor, you can‘t make much of DCS at all. Meaning you hurt just about everyone with difficulties found in that department. Hence, looking at world and their dog, the bar for „too complex“ is far lower than in this game, where the full mission editor is very optional, as you get plenty by doing just a few clicks in the simple mission editor, something absolutely lacking in DCS. The random mission generator is no compensation there, as it still throws you in the  mission editor.

 

Hence, everything in this game can be more complex while still being acceptable. My main concern is more that when trying to create a mission, you do things in a way one doesn’t expect and hence one looks in the wrong places. I felt the same trying blender after working with 3dsmax.

 

The initial homework one has to to be productive is just too big to ever „just do a simple mission“. Consequently, most never start at all. And this initial homework does not correlate with the functionality of the thing, but with its usability.

 

You know, Vi is a great editor. But.

Edited by ZachariasX
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, ZachariasX said:

I think on the question „what is (too) complex“ context is key. At least to me, it is obvious that without the mission editor, you can‘t make much of DCS at all. Meaning you hurt just about everyone with difficulties found in that department. Hence, looking at world and their dog, the bar for „too complex“ is far lower than in this game, where the full mission editor is very optional, as you get plenty by doing just a few clicks in the simple mission editor, something absolutely lacking in DCS. The random mission generator is no compensation there, as it still throws you in the  mission editor.

 

Hence, everything in this game can be more complex while still being acceptable. My main concern is more that when trying to create a mission, you do things in a way one doesn’t expect and hence one looks in the wrong places. I felt the same trying blender after doing working with 3dsmax.

 

The initial homework one has to to be productive is just too big to ever „just do a simple mission“. Consequently, most never start at all. And this initial homework does not correlate with the functionality of the thing, but with its usability.

 

You know, Vi is a great editor. But.

 

Vim is the god of an editor, if you just learn to use it. And if you are editing a lot of text files, then you should.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, ZachariasX said:

You know, Vi is a great editor. But.

There is no 'but' to this. :)

 

Edited by JG4_dingsda
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

About the Corsair, some people just can't be pleased it seems. Not ED, but a third party studio decided to build an F4U just because they love it, not because it fits anything - just like in DCS I-16 case. Nothing more, nothing less, they're not obliged to add anything else to it (and in fact they'll go for F-8 as their next project).

 

Unlike DCS I-16, though, they decided not to stop here but at least add a period correct AI opponent plane, and an aircraft carrier in single package for free.

 

I'm first and foremost PTO enthusiast myself, but even I understand that DCS is kind of FS/P3D/X-Plane equivalent with guns. A sandbox sim with some various planes to fly around. I don't expect it to be something it's not meant to be, especially when 3rd party studios are concerned.

  • Thanks 2
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Art-J said:

Not ED, but a third party studio decided to build an F4U just because they love it, not because it fits anything - just like in DCS I-16 case.

 

Right - like the i16, like the MiG 15, like the F-86...etc etc etc. With much respect, my admittedly “broken record, dead horse” point is, a wise producer harnesses those 3rd party resources and directs their time and talent toward a cohesive, sensible end result.

 

I LOVE the idea of a MiG 15, I’d be all over it...but unless I want to pretend that I’m a contemporary owner of this aircraft making the air show circuit (and I’m not saying that this doesn’t hold it's own appeal) I have little reason to invest the time or money.

 

5 minutes ago, Art-J said:

Nothing more, nothing less, they're not obliged to add anything else to it (and in fact they'll go for F-8 as their next project).

 

Of course they’re not obliged, we’re only talking in “it would be nice if” terms. :)

As such, it would be nice to see the producer direct this 3rd party (or another 3rd party) resource to the flyable Zero, then the F8. That’s called ‘allocation of resources’ 3rd party or otherwise and is the producer’s job.

 

I’m a 3rd party content creator, but what I produce has to make sense. If I proposed something that was out of wack, or a waste of time, Jason would not support it.

 

It’s not entirely apples to apples since I have to utilize aircraft produced by the team, but you get my gist. 

 

5 minutes ago, Art-J said:

Unlike DCS I-16, though, they decided not to stop here but at least add a period correct AI opponent plane, and an aircraft carrier in single package for free.

 

Which is a point I completely concede. It’s amazing, and a good start, more than a start - I agree. Just not the bullseye that it could be with resources pointed in the “correct” direction.

 

I also concede that I’m effectively saying “your vision isn’t correct Matt, MY vision is”

 

’shrug’

 

5 minutes ago, Art-J said:

I'm first and foremost PTO enthusiast myself,

 

It’s a difficult existence. Maybe we should start a support group!

 

5 minutes ago, Art-J said:

 

but even I understand that DCS is kind of FS/P3D/X-Plane equivalent with guns.

 

Which is a completely fair assessment and outlook. 

It’s the “near miss, to something that could be so much more” aspect that many of us find maddening. Progress toward a viable theater somewhere is like watching grass grow.

 

I’m also a huge fan of the Zero, which of course colors my entire opinion on this matter. :)

 

 

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Gambit21 said:

 

So does the F-14.

 

 

The Heatblur F-14B with the supercarrier is one of the best VR experiences I have had in a flight sim.  

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Gambit21 said:

It’s the “near miss, to something that could be so much more” aspect that many of us find maddening. Progress toward a viable theater somewhere is like watching grass grow.

 

But at what point is a "viable theater" reached? DCS has maps of the Caucasus, the Persian Gulf, and Syria. It also has some seriously hi-def jets and choppers and pretty sophisticated ground assets for both sides of a scenario, including some bitchin' carrier action. I can't see where a viable theater is missing in all that. Granted it not sold as a set, as is done in BoX, but the cost would be wildly prohibitive. So it's offered in bits and pieces and you fill up your sandbox with the toys you want and can afford and have your fun as you see fit.

 

If I can fly my DCS P-51, accompanied by Spitfires and P-47s, escorting A-20s and B-17s across the Channel, and meet up with 109s and 190s, and all kinds of flak and armour and ships appropriate to the era, and all of this on the best WWII map available, I don't see why this is inherently a worse example of a viable theater than what BoX offers. 

 

All of this reminds me of the arguments we had as kids; we the LEGO champions going head to head with the Meccano dweebs. :P "Pffffft!"

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Bremspropeller said:

Anybody else hyped for the SLUF?

 

Yup :)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Bremspropeller said:

Anybody else hyped for the SLUF?

 

Inquiring minds, and all that. :mellow: 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmmmm..... DCS forums are down for a few hours for an upgrade. Hope there's some candy to go along with it. :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe they've finally decided to update the forum appearance to something a little less reminiscent of the days when you had to physically place your telephone handset on your modem to connect to the new-fangled 'internet' thing. 😃

 

Edit: Yay! Spot on with my suggestion! And no, the forum was still down when I wrote the above. Welcome to the 21st century, DCS forums!!!

Edited by AndyJWest
precognition

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh man, the new DCS forum is terrible.

 

As Red Foxx would have said, "That forum so ugly, it look like it fell outta a ugly tree and hit every branch on the way down."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It now a visual representation of the core engine. 

 

 

  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's got the authentic 'just installed new forum software' look. Hopefully they'll add a few graphics or something to make it less generic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone found out how to show only new posts?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Dark option in the bottom left isnt too bad. Not good, but better than default.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This video is worth watching. There is a similar situation going on with EA and the Madden NFL football game. The bottom line is no competition and make as much money as you can. Once the NFL inked an exclusive agreement with EA and locked out other developers from using the NFL, the quality of Madden has gone downhill. Only after a massive twitter campaign that trended has EA belatedly promised to address the issues. In the meantime they continue to push a micro transaction business model that is under fire as a form of online gambling that targets minors...and the game is a buggy mess with major issues that have been known for years, but don't get fixed that EA charges a fortune for...

 

DCS while not in exactly the same boat as EA, does suffer some of the same sickness - mainly no competition and charge a lot of money for products that are incomplete. Other issues are addressed in this video.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eSTEopbdZ-o

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, BOO said:

It now a visual representation of the core engine. 

 

 

True GIFs | Tenor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is really needed is competition. Until that happens its pretty take what you get. If its ground beef sold at kobe beef prices its take it or leave it. If its alpo then be thankful its food.

 

Once again I go back to the EA and Madden fiasco. Once of the best football simulations ever made is the old ESPN 2K5. Back then there was competition between football franchises. Then the NFL gave exclusive rights to EA and its been downhill ever since.

 

Now after a trending Twitter backlash is EA responding, but there is a bigger reason. The NFL has just signed a deal with ESPN. The wording of the agreement is tricky and can be interpreted to mean they can't directly compete with EA, but what's stopping modders from turning it into a direct competitor? EA isn't stupid and see the writing on the wall and suddenly they are giving what they fan base has been asking for years...to bring back what used to be in EA football games. People were tired of being shaken down for money and getting sub-par products and add-ons. EA knew their fans wanted NFL football and they had a monopoly. They could do as they please. 

 

Don't kid yourself with no real competitor in the space DCS is under little pressure to deliver.

 

The second point is focus. DCS tries to be too many things to too many people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...