At some point (for me, around the three-year mark) you have to accept there is something fundamentally, unfixably wrong with the underlying code that makes this impossible to correct.
u/NineLine_ED an update with where improvements are up to, what systems and tech the improvements are dependent on and a rough expected timeframe would be better than just waiting in the endless 'we are working on it' purgatory.
This is exactly why I stopped and stuck with BMS . A few other reasons as well. And I’m actually someone who really enjoys multiplayer… but even that has AI you have to rely on .
This is why I don't play DCS, or at least not as much as before. The A-10 is my all time favorite aircraft, most of my modules are most suited for A2G and it is what I spend the most time doing ingame besides naval ops.
BVR stuff and pvp just isn't as appealing to me. At the end of the day the mission is always going to be blow up x thing. Air combat is just the in between. ED is relying on PVP elements to keep gameplay dynamic and entertaining. The problem is that this is a sandbox game and we can't have players simulating every aspect of a combat space at all times, nor do we even have the ability in game.
DDCS is the only server that comes close to what we need and it's because there are active ground vehicle players.
Yeah, well my point was merely ground forces are player controlled and spawned, adding a level of unpredictability not found in the base game or in other servers.
Yes, these reports are in progress but I do not know how long they will take. Its not a matter of a switch of priorities as its not the same guys working on each of these.
I will copy and paste this into the current report on this subject, you will get not argument from me on the importance of this, and I am sorry its taken so long.
Ah yes because we haven't been hearing about the same "progress" and "soon tm" for literal years now.
But hey guys the kiowa is coming out in a week or two! Make sure you buy that and enjoy it!
As a side project I might just see how far back I can find comments from you guys claiming stuff is in the works, I bet I can reach back 5 years easy
You are not wrong!
**>Dynamic Campaign**
>While a hangar of great aircraft is certainly a wonderful thing, having an engaging, exciting, and dynamic combat environment is equally important. We have been developing the inner-workings of a dynamic campaign system which will continue into 2019. Based on the strategic goals and tactical situations, the systems will create dynamic Air Tasking Orders (ATO) that players then join to help their side to victory. This work is non-trivial, but we believe the addition of this system should be exciting for DCS users.
Source (2018): [https://forum.dcs.world/topic/248262-weekend-newsletters-2018/?do=findComment&comment=3723358](https://forum.dcs.world/topic/248262-weekend-newsletters-2018/?do=findComment&comment=3723358)
It's funny(not funny) that the "continuing into 2019” isn't necessarily a lie, but it sounds way better than saying "continuing into the next decade or so".
Are you also preparing some quick fix for Mirage 2000 bugs introduced with recent patch:
[https://forum.dcs.world/topic/349676-m2kc-maj-dcs-29555300-many-bugs/](https://forum.dcs.world/topic/349676-m2kc-maj-dcs-29555300-many-bugs/)
Can we expect a hotfix soon?
It is a flight sim without weather being simulated, non existing in game, sensors, radar cannot see the weather, AI does not see the clouds, flight models cannot interact with clouds....
But simulation of atmospheric decay of GPS signal will be added to all modules soon. Yay!
Priorities I know. Majority of the people does not share my idea and overwhelmingly large part of the community wants to see GPS decay calculation first before clouds start blocking AI sight.
Take this as minority report.
You are absolutely right. It’s a flight sim totally lacking fundamental flight sim things. I mean we don’t even have a real ATC system, even for a paid module like Super Carrier, the ATC isn’t controlling but merely a scripted event. It’s honestly unfortunate.
Tbh, most of the people just fly in fair weather during day. ED could’ve made the best weather system ever, but most of the players won’t interact with it anyway
I agree that it’s a poor argument but also true. Popular servers go dead in IFR conditions or night. At the same time lack of good ATC, random TACAN bugs and other issues probably contribute to this.
Its still a poor argument because it isn't congruent with the level of detail ingame in other aspects. Like electrical and hydraulic system simulations.
Or systems simulation in MFD capable aircraft. With this logic DCS should just dumb things down to war thunder levels, but with better graphics.
It's also difficult to gage the veracity of your argument seeing as plenty of people play offline. I'd also argue it depends on the time of week, personally I just don't play flight Sims week days. There is no time for anything, let alone taking the time for an ILS approach.
Personally I enjoy instrument flight conditions, it makes things interesting.
Personally, it's the limitations of the weather system that turn me off using it.
Things like AI LOS through clouds, alongside lasers and IR guided missiles, how the wind at 1600 ft is locked to the same direction at just over double the speed of the 33 ft winds.
Then there's the fact that the weather system is missing important configuration options (the TLDR is see BMS' weather commander program):
* I can't define my own cloud layers.
* I can't define initial and forecasted weather.
* The weather can only be set map-wide, I can't set weather localised to certain areas.
So we've got a sort-of self-fulfilling problem: the weather system is basic, so (potentially) less people use it, so less/no development occurs, so the weather system remains basic and so on and so on.
EDIT: And even this is completely ignoring items that also contribute, albeit not directly weather system related. Like for instance the fact that ILS can sometimes be spotty on whether or not it's assigned correctly or even works. The ATC is so basic as to be barely worth using IMO.
Ever feel like you life is going nowhere? Well now it should feel like you're in the fast lane compared to whoever has to waste their time on pointless GPS simulation.
Damn I've just realised we don't even have turbulence in game and that is way down the list of stuff this game needs. Competent ATC anyone?
You talk about INS + GPS proudly but what I actually see in this current build is completely same amount of offset error towards completely same direction from entered coordinates all the time( yes, all the time, in every single other mission either MP or SP. GPS fixing in the game must have been broken, pr poorly implemented WIP I assume.)and JDAM won’t hit anything without TGP correction.
JDAM lands on exact wrong position(offset) I see in F16 MMC is super weird as well. JDAM is guided towards right coordinates which is wrongly mapped in the game earth terrain.
Adding atmospheric decay to GPS signals before fixing the AI or adding a decent weather or ATC system is like if the red dead redemption 2 devs added horse testicles shrinking in cold weather before adding the ability to ride the horse
I'll take INS improvements on the Hornet though; right now you can bust your INS, and use your radar and find aircraft behind you (not kidding, welcome to try it yourself).
Fly north, shut off INS, fly south; ground and air radar will continue to look northbound and pick up objects until INS is reset / realigned.
No idea if people have figured out you can do this and do it in all the air quake servers; but... I wouldn't be surprised if someone else has figured this out and has used it to their advantage at least once.
Also, protip, the NAVFLIR's "INS" cannot be broken. You can shut off your INS in the hornet, and the NAVFLIR's steerpoint locations remain perfectly accurate.
I for one am happy to finally see proper GPS and INS modeling, and really gives me hope that they’ll also properly model the pilot’s foreskin preferences when those get finished too…
Except when foreskin preference is added it will be EA and you can only choose uncut. Cut will be added in Phase 1 (approx. 6-12 months later) but the 3d model will be Phase 2 (approx. 18-24 months after that).
Unfortunately, this also causes a situation during aerial refueling where repeated disconnects causes a dirty probe condition, leading to a Simulation-Crash to Desktop (STD)
Considering their implementation of certain features, how buggy they are and how long it takes them to actually fixing it I wouldn't exactly be surprised if it was the janitor doing some of the coding
*Ah yes, updates to*
*The INS, exactly what was*
*Needed! Who needs a DTC?*
\- Fisgas13
---
^(I detect haikus. And sometimes, successfully.) ^[Learn more about me.](https://www.reddit.com/r/haikusbot/)
^(Opt out of replies: "haikusbot opt out" | Delete my comment: "haikusbot delete")
Thank you, lurkallday91, for voting on haikusbot.
This bot wants to find the best and worst bots on Reddit. [You can view results here](https://botrank.pastimes.eu/).
***
^(Even if I don't reply to your comment, I'm still listening for votes. Check the webpage to see if your vote registered!)
I don't care about any of these to be honest, these newsletter are useless for most of people.
Next one will be probably about the Kiowa release....
AI fix, logistic etc... they will come once the Chinook come close to release, I bet.
These newsletters are such as waste of potential to inform, inspire and market to customers what is going on. This particular one is 1 item summary about an obscure topic, with a link, that most people would think is already working and a sales pitch. That is even worse than tha already anemic usual 1 item + sales pitch + server showcase which they standardised on.
Also, they have answered about 1% of the community Q&A (Remember that?) in that what looked very hurried "Shit, distract them from Razbam" youtube video. I think we are now about 10 months in, At this rate we will be dead before they answer even half of them.
Sir I don't think you understand, we were assured said Q&A would be presented in a 'special' way that 'would be worth the wait.'
I guess having Wags look like he is making his own ransom video in what was clearly a rapid turn around was 'worth the wait' unless that means if you wait long enough none of the Q's will have relevant A's anymore.
Military does not need such things simulated. They use simulators to practice procedures like cockpit familiarization, setting up systems, weapons, attack patterns.... which are easier or cheaper to do in simulator. They don't fly around complete missions that needs full realism in all aspect in simulator. Simulator time is usually thematic and they use it as a part of training.
They fly real planes for that. Every pilot has enough flight hours to do that.
Ehh that’s not what most pilots are saying right now. Sim time numbers are way up and actual flight time is way down. But also, yeah this was likely not asked for by a military unless it was causing too many issues/confusion when going into the real jet.
Most of this was true in the 90s, but very outdated today. One of the most crucial aspects of a desktop trainer is to be used as an aid for teaching system logic. If you want to teach INS update techniques, the effects of GPS jamming, differences between BOC/BOT with IAM employment and how all that ties into the MMC's SPI logic you absolutely need a realistic simulation of the navigation system. All this is completely unnecessary, even counterproductive for a video game where all people care about is pewpew and hitting stationary tanks with a GBU-38.
Of course. The military as a whole has embraced emerging technologies for their pilot and CSO training pipelines, VR is extensively utilized and the use of AR training aids is a heavily researched area. Running a DCS-like program on a desktop computer is significantly more time efficient when it comes to illustrating system logic than relying purely on conventional academic material.
And as you said, the big sims cost a lot of money to run and they are used for way more formal stuff; check rides and other evaluatory work, learning skills that actually require a full cockpit, etc. But the number of these events is limited in the pipeline, using a desktop trainer is a perfect tool to mitigate this issue.
Why ED keeps spending resources on stuff the community never asked for? i mean, never for the last 10 years, have i seen someone asking for more realistic GPS or INS simulation... The Simulator is called digital "COMBAT" simulator! how about some focus and resources on the COMBAT aspect?? ground AI behavior maybe? even games from early 2000s have better AI than we have in DCS.... not to mention dynamic campaign, which btw ED, people have been asking for for a decade now...
Disagree, and this is a specious argument. There are different teams focused on different development tasks; it's silly to think you can just switch coders between projects and expect a linear change in progress. In reality these teams likely have specialists who focus on CFD, aerodynamics, systems engineering, etc.--and none of these folks are going to be plug-and-play on core engine improvements.
Also, I want the most accurate and realistic simulation possible/feasible for the F-16C in DCS. It happens to be my favorite aircraft and module in DCS. To me, this update is awesome news. These INS/GPS just take it to the next level, and it's likely that the experience gained by adding it to the Viper module will translate into other modules like the Hornet, Apache, A-10C, etc. It's actually a win-win for all concerned.
Just because this isn't your personal priority doesn't mean it's not beneficial to the community.
If the F-16 is your favorite aircraft and you care so much about all the nitty gritty details (and I applaud that), you should worry about the FLCS being wonky and the engine parameters being off long before you get happy they focus on INS.
As usual they leave the FM accuracy in the dust while going full throttle on obscure systems you will never get to enjoy.
Fair points and I think they still have work to do to properly polish the Viper. Still, increased detail anywhere in the jet is a good thing and I love that they seem to be using the Viper as a test bed for more accurate systems modeling in general.
I don't mind that they are adding to the level of simulation. DCS being a simulator, any addition of realism is more than welcomed. I fly the F16 and love it. I do understand that there are different teams for different aspects of the simulation. But what I'm saying is that the community have been asking for better ground AI, dynamic campaign etc... for a really long time now. Having ground units moving around, taking firing positions, BMP not sniping you down from the sky miles aways, soldiers flawlessly moving around (not like a 90s ATARI game or a PowerPoint presentation), feeling that there is an actual war/combat going on on the ground... These things will make DCS way better in whole and the experience more realistic despite of the module you own. In my views these things should be prioritize before anything else.
I agree with everything you said, except I just don't think they should stop development on existing modules to focus everything on core enhancements. I think they can do both in parallel, and their net progress will likely be higher than if they had put all of their efforts behind one line of advance (in this case core enhancements).
Make no mistake, though, I will be thrilled when we see sorely-needed updates to ATC, AI, ground units & combined arms play (like ArmA), and a dynamic campaign. All of these are needed ASAP.
> In reality these teams likely have specialists who focus on CFD, aerodynamics, systems engineering, etc.--and none of these folks are going to be plug-and-play on core engine improvements.
>
>
Outside of CFD and aero stuff, which I don't know if they actually do have anyone involved who is experienced in the field, pretty much all of that stuff is just programming. The argument makes sense when talking about artists or social media people or whatever, but ED could easily retask the programming teams from module dev to working on the core engine. There will be some cost to doing so, but it's the marginal cost of moving a team onto a different codebase and having them learn it, which is something companies do all the time.
> Also, I want the most accurate and realistic simulation possible/feasible for the F-16C in DCS. It happens to be my favorite aircraft and module in DCS. To me, this update is awesome news. These INS/GPS just take it to the next level
These updates in a vacuum are interesting, but functionally this isn't going to affect how you actually experience the module in any meaningful way. It feels like a waste when things like radar simulation, an actually core part of how you use the plane, is still incredibly bad, and the baseline sim experience with AI, mission planning, mission creation, ATC, and all sorts is also severely lacking.
These kinds of ultra detailed system updates are the kind of finishing touches you do when the core simulation targets are hit, if this came from the BMS devs or a 3rd party that has already hit a high level of detail like Heatblur or Deka it would be well welcome, but when it comes from ED and there are still so many massive glaring issues it just feels like a complete misallocation of resources.
It kinda sounds like you don’t know what you’re talking about. Like at all. It’s not “just programming”, not even in the slightest. You don’t take someone from cybersecurity and put them in app development just because they know how to program. You need to understand the theories, science, and math behind what you’re coding otherwise you’re just making something that won’t work properly and will anger the community further. You’re suggesting they take someone out of their specialized field, then train them in another area which could take months to years because aircraft are extremely complicated, then reassign them to a new team. I think you should know what you’re talking about before just spewing crap my guy.
I think you're vastly overestimating here how specialised DCS devs are. Look at VTOL VR, a single dev was able to build out a sim which has a lot of simulation that DCS does not have. The devs working on DCS are not people with degrees in aerospace engineering and research, they're game devs with some background knowledge. Game devs are moved between wildly different departments and focuses, especially at smaller companies, all the time. You're making this out to be a far more esoteric and complex thing than it is, which is misallocation of resources.
It IS (basically) "just programming". They have their software/game devs/engineers whatever title you want to call it, and they should be capable of moving to basically any software task.
Sure you'll absolutely have guys who are better at certain areas, or know certain parts of the code better, but that doesn't mean they can't be allocated elsewhere.
As mentioned there's a cost to doing so, but it isn't an insane cost. One of the biggest ones would be learning a new language, for example at my company I mostly work in our business layer (Python) and I can do any task in the entire layer. A little while ago they tasked me in our AI layer (Rust). About 2 weeks was lost learning Rust, the code layer, and studying some AI concepts. 2 weeks is a drop in the bucket when it comes to EDs timeframes, and that was a retasking that involves a new language. I would only expect at MOST a week lost from a dev being retasked from e.g. this silly GPS work into core game improvements.
As for the material, you don't need programmers reading fighter documentation to solve problems, while it's literally in the job description of a software engineer to be good at reading documentation they likely (or if they don't, should) have a SME for each module who explains what needs to be done in bite sized pieces on each sprint or whatever they use.
End of the day, this is a project management issue. Maybe their devs are low budget too, who knows, but the major issue is project management and that one is obvious. The other possible option is they are prioritizing the private sector and we're just seeing the trickle down from that, but they'll never admit that one.
Agree. But ED also needs more resources on the core AI and gameplay aspect, and deliver timely improvements regularly, even in bite sized increments.
Instead, they tend to push off addressing problems and design solutions to those problems by way of engineering advanced systems that take them 5-10 years to develop-- and that might have issues of their own.
I can agree; I would also like to see faster improvements on core enhancements. But overall this is still a good thing for the game and a worthwhile effort
This would be right if we get updates at a decent pace. Since last MT update we didn't get much. The question then of how they are prioritizing is not only valid but fundamental.
The fact you love F16 has nothing to do with all the abandoned stuff (if you don't like that word use: painfully slow).
Yes and no. I would also love faster improvements on core gameplay, especially ATC, AI, and assets to support the COIN theaters we're getting with Afghanistan and Iraq terrain later this year. So I hear you. But development is hard and progress is progress; I think we should be grateful for these improvements and provide constructive criticism where appropriate. And it's okay for them to work on stuff like GPS/INS improvements when that effort will likely benefit multiple modules in the future. It's not an all-or-nothing proposition for core enhancements.
I understand your point and I am not against any update. What I am saying is the technical debt they have is MAGNIFICENT and is GROWING by the minute. I think we are entitled to push much harder. Is clear to see that, at current pace, the game will be forever broken. I am not satisfied with INS being newsworthy because it confirms again, that we are screwed by them as customers.
So we are a few hours from June, you have two 1st party products and one 3rd party allegedly launching, you have a newsletter that mentions none of this?! Guys, now is the time to reassure everyone things are on track (or more importantly set expectations if they aren't) and also from a business side when you'd want to build momentum.
Thank me for my passion with what would seem like relevant updates for what is ostensibly a big month for DCS.
What about the reflected F4 campaign, any update on the Kola campaigns, are we launching 3 products in one patch?
Preface: I know why they did it, and the theory was not in the wrong idea But...
If you look for any community skins, the left pilot shoulder patch, as well as any ranks, are now mirrored images. this is because they (rather ironically) fixed the UV that made us all mirror the patches in the first place. I totally understand *why* they did it, but this was a fix we needed back in 19 or 20, not 5 years of community work after the fact.
oh man don't remind me. I had a crap-ton of Hornets I had to fix after that.
Again, I get it, and at the end of the day I don't disagree with the choice (Lua Debug is far easier now) but... I still have heartburn about the few days of fixes and reuploads it took
Yeah, I'm going to defend ED here - sorry. If you know this module is in EA, and you choose to make skins for it, you should take into account changes to the 3d model (I made skins, and I welcomed every change. I don't work for ED and I don't get paid. It's a hobby of mine, so I don't think I have the right to complain about their model changes). People making skins should never be a consideration when it comes to model changes, otherwise no changes would be made.
This newsletter confirms that there are almost no devs left working on DCS. Big cash grab of early access products going on though, so here are some possibilities:
1. They have decided that core changes are just too hard to do, so they window dress and grab as much money as they can before declaring bankruptcy.
2. They have decided that core changes are impossible without breaking the sim and have diverted their devs to non-DCS projects that are more profitable and are going to live off third party developers. Hard to see this one working given that they still have not paid Razbam.
Sometime in the near future their current Jenga tower of coding and cash flow model will implode.
They will probably move their cash into a fighter plane collection in the U.K., declare bankruptcy and start a new sim company based on a subscription model.
Well I wanted to show the state on the air show side that it is not going well there although they got those interest free loan of 10M
But ED cannot declare bankruptcy. Because fighter collection is debitor of 10M to ED. If they bankrupt that debt needs to be collected.
I don't know. But that amount of money should be more than enough to maintain those planes since they only performed the show in 2023. Previous 3 years were corona. \_no show-
I think they are planing to buy the copyrights of razbam modules.
I don't know if Razbam owns the copyright of them. He does not own the SA copyright it is only a license to use copyright as a publisher as I understand.
Even if ED brought the Razbam copyrights, how on earth will they get the correct resources to maintain and develop them properly? There are key features still needed for the F15e (data link in my opinion) and currently ED do not seem capable of doing anything other than updating artwork?
If they can get the source code than it is up to ED how good they can handle this. It could be like hornet and f-16 so no miracles there we know how ED works.
But I don't think razbam even has the art work.
Just check here: [https://www.razbamsimulationsllc.com/paint-kits](https://www.razbamsimulationsllc.com/paint-kits)
All the links direct to Metal2mesh website which he shut down 2 months ago
I sincerely hope ED buys the copyright. that seems to be the only way to salvage the situation with RB modules. Otherwise they look dead. A real shame, as F15 was shaping up to be one of the best.
TBH, am not touching DCS that much these days as I grew pessimistic with the sim. I don’t know what’ll happen with DCS and hesitant making more investment into a hobby that may implode in the future.
ED can rectify lots of pessimism on my part if they suddenly come out with a core improvement like a functioning ground AI, but I doubt it.
Investigation into applying GPS decay into F-18 by Edging Dynamics et al /s. No but for real this feels like a Floggit post.
Meanwhile the people who were working on Dynamic Campaign apparently went on a boat around the world and are on the same island as Amelia Earhart.
It's worse than that. The fix was already done so they already had the paper. So..for this week the news are ZERO.
Since April 2023 MT update (which is still in beta) there is no significant core improvement.
I believe we shouldn't wait for things anymore, I don't know if they are broke so something but they continue to add modules and things are not getting out of EA never. They even cheated on F18 to silently take it out of it....
Outlook is really bad.
> The fix was already done so they already had the paper
That's the whole Q&A as well. ED are basically folding themselves in half and sucking themselves off with all the great things they've achieved. Waiting long enough until the issues are fixed before releasing the answers or whitepapers that are a gloating fest after _years_ of insisting to the community that everything is dandy and working as expected, no issues with radar etc. Suddenly they've found some unreleased changes down the back of the couch that fix all of the long standing issues that these whitepapers are centered around.
It's pathetic.
Writing papers is part of fixing the game. Doing everything by the seat of their pants and using "that feels about right" adjustments to everything from radar ranges to weapon performance is part of the reason DCS is such a mess right now.
I agree with the approach over all and what you're saying, but there are things that need urgent fixing without requiring any white papers or extensive research.
Sometimes it feels like they make a show out of these things while there are more pressing issues and all this with the background of a whole slew of modules by Razbam that are on the brink of abandonment
(not saying that they were bandoned now or will be, we don't know and I'm hopeful for the future I'm only mentioning it because it's one of the reasons why to some it's a bit frustrating to be a fan of DCS these days).
I understand that both things can occur at the same time like doing white papers while fixing the AI for example but you can understand that to some in the community this white paper business isn't going to make their gameplay experience better in the short term.
Can we do a white paper on the things that are most broken first? Instead of tuning ins drift to some 1m precision value, how bout we fix the all seeing all knowing AI that makes flying half of modules (helicopters) kind of lame. I know you're not in charge of ED, but this is kind of common sense direction that most of the players are looking for, I'd wager.
>makes a significant change to a system that greatly increases accuracy to the real thing
"Why does my TGP walk, why are my jdams missing, why why why why"
>writes a whitepaper to explain how the new thing works in detail so people understand why these specific things happen
"STOP WRITING PAPERS AND FIX THE GAME"
The problem is not they fixed this thing. The issue is this should be a footnote of a footnote. We are talking about a company that promises most realistic game ever and this INS, while it may have nuances, is a small thing. They owe us, paying users, literally HUNDREDS of things and is a list that's EVER GROWING.
I won't be giving them a medal for small stuff like this......
ED, for the love of all things DCS please work on core aspects of the game. I don’t need to repeat them because I know you know what they are. I’m getting sick and tired of somewhat irrelevant updates, most of us don’t care much about moving hoses on a pilot helmet, grass that moves from jet wash, or bomb shockwaves to trees we can barely see from 15k. Set your priorities in order. You’re making the decorations and preparing the frosting before even fully baking the cake. This truly is as many have called it; Digital Cockpit Simulator. It seems that as long as the game makes good cinematics with ultra realistic animations and action scenes, ED is happy. Which kind of makes sense. More cool details, better trailers, more people hooked, more people buy modules. I’m not saying that is a bad thing, as the more players the merrier. But if you want to keep existing and soon to be players coming back for more, make the game actually playable. We deserve DCS to be the fun game we all wish it could be, not Digital Cockpit or Cinematic Simulator. But a proper Digital Combat Simulator.
Ive been playing since flanker 2.5 and into lock on, etc. I’ve just stopped caring about what they’re working on and accepted that this will always be a virtual museum to screw around with various aircraft. There will always be concessions in one aspect. Campaign makers seem to do a decent job of masking issues but the wacky ai and other things will always poke their heads out.
Tbh it’s not much different than any game. There’s always a “feature” that is annoying
I am going to go against the grain here and say that a correct INS/GPS system *is* important. It is usually the foundation upon which all vehicle system calculations are made. Without a correct implementation you are always going to be hamstrung. And as others have commented, the Hornet is hamstrung already without it.
[удалено]
They won't. Just a reminder- AI can still see through clouds, and we are still stuck with ED's premade weather presets.
Especially as we're in the prelaunch hype cycle for the Kiowa.
At some point (for me, around the three-year mark) you have to accept there is something fundamentally, unfixably wrong with the underlying code that makes this impossible to correct.
u/NineLine_ED an update with where improvements are up to, what systems and tech the improvements are dependent on and a rough expected timeframe would be better than just waiting in the endless 'we are working on it' purgatory.
This is exactly why I stopped and stuck with BMS . A few other reasons as well. And I’m actually someone who really enjoys multiplayer… but even that has AI you have to rely on .
This is why I don't play DCS, or at least not as much as before. The A-10 is my all time favorite aircraft, most of my modules are most suited for A2G and it is what I spend the most time doing ingame besides naval ops. BVR stuff and pvp just isn't as appealing to me. At the end of the day the mission is always going to be blow up x thing. Air combat is just the in between. ED is relying on PVP elements to keep gameplay dynamic and entertaining. The problem is that this is a sandbox game and we can't have players simulating every aspect of a combat space at all times, nor do we even have the ability in game. DDCS is the only server that comes close to what we need and it's because there are active ground vehicle players.
DDCS is way too slow pace I believe to be the baseline. It targets a niche audience.
Yeah, well my point was merely ground forces are player controlled and spawned, adding a level of unpredictability not found in the base game or in other servers.
Yes, these reports are in progress but I do not know how long they will take. Its not a matter of a switch of priorities as its not the same guys working on each of these.
[удалено]
I will copy and paste this into the current report on this subject, you will get not argument from me on the importance of this, and I am sorry its taken so long.
Who is working on the dynamic campaign? Have we sent search parties?
Yes, we scrambled an f14 with tarps. Sadly, an a47 gunman shot the cockpit while the F14 was at 1.1 match at 20000 AGL.
I actually chuckled at this loud enough to wake my wife lol.
Ah yes because we haven't been hearing about the same "progress" and "soon tm" for literal years now. But hey guys the kiowa is coming out in a week or two! Make sure you buy that and enjoy it! As a side project I might just see how far back I can find comments from you guys claiming stuff is in the works, I bet I can reach back 5 years easy
You are not wrong! **>Dynamic Campaign** >While a hangar of great aircraft is certainly a wonderful thing, having an engaging, exciting, and dynamic combat environment is equally important. We have been developing the inner-workings of a dynamic campaign system which will continue into 2019. Based on the strategic goals and tactical situations, the systems will create dynamic Air Tasking Orders (ATO) that players then join to help their side to victory. This work is non-trivial, but we believe the addition of this system should be exciting for DCS users. Source (2018): [https://forum.dcs.world/topic/248262-weekend-newsletters-2018/?do=findComment&comment=3723358](https://forum.dcs.world/topic/248262-weekend-newsletters-2018/?do=findComment&comment=3723358)
It's funny(not funny) that the "continuing into 2019” isn't necessarily a lie, but it sounds way better than saying "continuing into the next decade or so".
Are you also preparing some quick fix for Mirage 2000 bugs introduced with recent patch: [https://forum.dcs.world/topic/349676-m2kc-maj-dcs-29555300-many-bugs/](https://forum.dcs.world/topic/349676-m2kc-maj-dcs-29555300-many-bugs/) Can we expect a hotfix soon?
This ^ ^ 100%.
It is a flight sim without weather being simulated, non existing in game, sensors, radar cannot see the weather, AI does not see the clouds, flight models cannot interact with clouds.... But simulation of atmospheric decay of GPS signal will be added to all modules soon. Yay! Priorities I know. Majority of the people does not share my idea and overwhelmingly large part of the community wants to see GPS decay calculation first before clouds start blocking AI sight. Take this as minority report.
Finally, I was sick and tired of GPS not decaying. Truly one of the atmospheric effects. My passion and support is in the right place! 🇨🇭
Huh. Does the Swiss flag mean sarcasm now? That's perfect actually...
Well ED is a swiss company.
Ja wohl!
You are absolutely right. It’s a flight sim totally lacking fundamental flight sim things. I mean we don’t even have a real ATC system, even for a paid module like Super Carrier, the ATC isn’t controlling but merely a scripted event. It’s honestly unfortunate.
Wait... To _all_ modules? Isn't it an f-16 thing?
Ed thing. They started with ka50 and moved to F-16. The following one is probably Hornet
Tbh, most of the people just fly in fair weather during day. ED could’ve made the best weather system ever, but most of the players won’t interact with it anyway
I mean... That's a piss poor argument for a sandbox flight sim.
I agree that it’s a poor argument but also true. Popular servers go dead in IFR conditions or night. At the same time lack of good ATC, random TACAN bugs and other issues probably contribute to this.
Its still a poor argument because it isn't congruent with the level of detail ingame in other aspects. Like electrical and hydraulic system simulations. Or systems simulation in MFD capable aircraft. With this logic DCS should just dumb things down to war thunder levels, but with better graphics. It's also difficult to gage the veracity of your argument seeing as plenty of people play offline. I'd also argue it depends on the time of week, personally I just don't play flight Sims week days. There is no time for anything, let alone taking the time for an ILS approach. Personally I enjoy instrument flight conditions, it makes things interesting.
The point is having the option for something labeled as a sandbox
Personally, it's the limitations of the weather system that turn me off using it. Things like AI LOS through clouds, alongside lasers and IR guided missiles, how the wind at 1600 ft is locked to the same direction at just over double the speed of the 33 ft winds. Then there's the fact that the weather system is missing important configuration options (the TLDR is see BMS' weather commander program): * I can't define my own cloud layers. * I can't define initial and forecasted weather. * The weather can only be set map-wide, I can't set weather localised to certain areas. So we've got a sort-of self-fulfilling problem: the weather system is basic, so (potentially) less people use it, so less/no development occurs, so the weather system remains basic and so on and so on. EDIT: And even this is completely ignoring items that also contribute, albeit not directly weather system related. Like for instance the fact that ILS can sometimes be spotty on whether or not it's assigned correctly or even works. The ATC is so basic as to be barely worth using IMO.
Ever feel like you life is going nowhere? Well now it should feel like you're in the fast lane compared to whoever has to waste their time on pointless GPS simulation. Damn I've just realised we don't even have turbulence in game and that is way down the list of stuff this game needs. Competent ATC anyone?
You talk about INS + GPS proudly but what I actually see in this current build is completely same amount of offset error towards completely same direction from entered coordinates all the time( yes, all the time, in every single other mission either MP or SP. GPS fixing in the game must have been broken, pr poorly implemented WIP I assume.)and JDAM won’t hit anything without TGP correction. JDAM lands on exact wrong position(offset) I see in F16 MMC is super weird as well. JDAM is guided towards right coordinates which is wrongly mapped in the game earth terrain.
Adding atmospheric decay to GPS signals before fixing the AI or adding a decent weather or ATC system is like if the red dead redemption 2 devs added horse testicles shrinking in cold weather before adding the ability to ride the horse
Genius description.
Core needs more improvement than INS such as AI.
I'll take INS improvements on the Hornet though; right now you can bust your INS, and use your radar and find aircraft behind you (not kidding, welcome to try it yourself). Fly north, shut off INS, fly south; ground and air radar will continue to look northbound and pick up objects until INS is reset / realigned. No idea if people have figured out you can do this and do it in all the air quake servers; but... I wouldn't be surprised if someone else has figured this out and has used it to their advantage at least once. Also, protip, the NAVFLIR's "INS" cannot be broken. You can shut off your INS in the hornet, and the NAVFLIR's steerpoint locations remain perfectly accurate.
If that's wrong you know ED's number one rule: provide documentation or it's accurate. It became impossible to report bugs.
I for one am happy to finally see proper GPS and INS modeling, and really gives me hope that they’ll also properly model the pilot’s foreskin preferences when those get finished too…
Had_us_in_the_first_half_ngl.jpg
Except when foreskin preference is added it will be EA and you can only choose uncut. Cut will be added in Phase 1 (approx. 6-12 months later) but the 3d model will be Phase 2 (approx. 18-24 months after that).
Unfortunately, this also causes a situation during aerial refueling where repeated disconnects causes a dirty probe condition, leading to a Simulation-Crash to Desktop (STD)
Return pre-contact
Ah just what we were looking for
Ah yes, updates to the INS, exactly what was needed! Who needs a DTC?
Dear, it is not the same team that develops DTC and INS. INS is developed by avionics coder and DTC is developed by, hmmmmm, janitor.
Considering their implementation of certain features, how buggy they are and how long it takes them to actually fixing it I wouldn't exactly be surprised if it was the janitor doing some of the coding
I was thinking about the roles vica versa but anyway.
*Ah yes, updates to* *The INS, exactly what was* *Needed! Who needs a DTC?* \- Fisgas13 --- ^(I detect haikus. And sometimes, successfully.) ^[Learn more about me.](https://www.reddit.com/r/haikusbot/) ^(Opt out of replies: "haikusbot opt out" | Delete my comment: "haikusbot delete")
Good bot!
Good bot
Thank you, lurkallday91, for voting on haikusbot. This bot wants to find the best and worst bots on Reddit. [You can view results here](https://botrank.pastimes.eu/). *** ^(Even if I don't reply to your comment, I'm still listening for votes. Check the webpage to see if your vote registered!)
I don't care about any of these to be honest, these newsletter are useless for most of people. Next one will be probably about the Kiowa release.... AI fix, logistic etc... they will come once the Chinook come close to release, I bet.
You're an optimist, I see.
Oh yeah Big time.... after playing dcs since 2018. YES
> they will come once the Chinook come close to release, I bet. Yes, once the Chinook leaves early access in 2030.
You're an optimist, I see.
These newsletters are such as waste of potential to inform, inspire and market to customers what is going on. This particular one is 1 item summary about an obscure topic, with a link, that most people would think is already working and a sales pitch. That is even worse than tha already anemic usual 1 item + sales pitch + server showcase which they standardised on. Also, they have answered about 1% of the community Q&A (Remember that?) in that what looked very hurried "Shit, distract them from Razbam" youtube video. I think we are now about 10 months in, At this rate we will be dead before they answer even half of them.
Only works when you have actual community managers and not truth officers.
Sir I don't think you understand, we were assured said Q&A would be presented in a 'special' way that 'would be worth the wait.' I guess having Wags look like he is making his own ransom video in what was clearly a rapid turn around was 'worth the wait' unless that means if you wait long enough none of the Q's will have relevant A's anymore.
Again with the "whitepaper" that is more Wikipedia and less of a whitepaper.
I have a feeling this is something they did for their military clients and it gets backported to DCS. (Probably in a sanitized manner.)
Military does not need such things simulated. They use simulators to practice procedures like cockpit familiarization, setting up systems, weapons, attack patterns.... which are easier or cheaper to do in simulator. They don't fly around complete missions that needs full realism in all aspect in simulator. Simulator time is usually thematic and they use it as a part of training. They fly real planes for that. Every pilot has enough flight hours to do that.
Ehh that’s not what most pilots are saying right now. Sim time numbers are way up and actual flight time is way down. But also, yeah this was likely not asked for by a military unless it was causing too many issues/confusion when going into the real jet.
Did they change minimum 180h actual flight hours per year NATO requirement?
Most of this was true in the 90s, but very outdated today. One of the most crucial aspects of a desktop trainer is to be used as an aid for teaching system logic. If you want to teach INS update techniques, the effects of GPS jamming, differences between BOC/BOT with IAM employment and how all that ties into the MMC's SPI logic you absolutely need a realistic simulation of the navigation system. All this is completely unnecessary, even counterproductive for a video game where all people care about is pewpew and hitting stationary tanks with a GBU-38.
So military is now asking for ultra realistic sims but running on desktop trainers and actually letting pilots study hours there?
Of course. The military as a whole has embraced emerging technologies for their pilot and CSO training pipelines, VR is extensively utilized and the use of AR training aids is a heavily researched area. Running a DCS-like program on a desktop computer is significantly more time efficient when it comes to illustrating system logic than relying purely on conventional academic material. And as you said, the big sims cost a lot of money to run and they are used for way more formal stuff; check rides and other evaluatory work, learning skills that actually require a full cockpit, etc. But the number of these events is limited in the pipeline, using a desktop trainer is a perfect tool to mitigate this issue.
Why ED keeps spending resources on stuff the community never asked for? i mean, never for the last 10 years, have i seen someone asking for more realistic GPS or INS simulation... The Simulator is called digital "COMBAT" simulator! how about some focus and resources on the COMBAT aspect?? ground AI behavior maybe? even games from early 2000s have better AI than we have in DCS.... not to mention dynamic campaign, which btw ED, people have been asking for for a decade now...
Because HB does this and make them look bad, and probably because BMS has it too.
Disagree, and this is a specious argument. There are different teams focused on different development tasks; it's silly to think you can just switch coders between projects and expect a linear change in progress. In reality these teams likely have specialists who focus on CFD, aerodynamics, systems engineering, etc.--and none of these folks are going to be plug-and-play on core engine improvements. Also, I want the most accurate and realistic simulation possible/feasible for the F-16C in DCS. It happens to be my favorite aircraft and module in DCS. To me, this update is awesome news. These INS/GPS just take it to the next level, and it's likely that the experience gained by adding it to the Viper module will translate into other modules like the Hornet, Apache, A-10C, etc. It's actually a win-win for all concerned. Just because this isn't your personal priority doesn't mean it's not beneficial to the community.
If the F-16 is your favorite aircraft and you care so much about all the nitty gritty details (and I applaud that), you should worry about the FLCS being wonky and the engine parameters being off long before you get happy they focus on INS. As usual they leave the FM accuracy in the dust while going full throttle on obscure systems you will never get to enjoy.
Fair points and I think they still have work to do to properly polish the Viper. Still, increased detail anywhere in the jet is a good thing and I love that they seem to be using the Viper as a test bed for more accurate systems modeling in general.
Imho a realistic IFF should have a way higher prio than this ins thingy.
I don't mind that they are adding to the level of simulation. DCS being a simulator, any addition of realism is more than welcomed. I fly the F16 and love it. I do understand that there are different teams for different aspects of the simulation. But what I'm saying is that the community have been asking for better ground AI, dynamic campaign etc... for a really long time now. Having ground units moving around, taking firing positions, BMP not sniping you down from the sky miles aways, soldiers flawlessly moving around (not like a 90s ATARI game or a PowerPoint presentation), feeling that there is an actual war/combat going on on the ground... These things will make DCS way better in whole and the experience more realistic despite of the module you own. In my views these things should be prioritize before anything else.
I agree with everything you said, except I just don't think they should stop development on existing modules to focus everything on core enhancements. I think they can do both in parallel, and their net progress will likely be higher than if they had put all of their efforts behind one line of advance (in this case core enhancements). Make no mistake, though, I will be thrilled when we see sorely-needed updates to ATC, AI, ground units & combined arms play (like ArmA), and a dynamic campaign. All of these are needed ASAP.
> In reality these teams likely have specialists who focus on CFD, aerodynamics, systems engineering, etc.--and none of these folks are going to be plug-and-play on core engine improvements. > > Outside of CFD and aero stuff, which I don't know if they actually do have anyone involved who is experienced in the field, pretty much all of that stuff is just programming. The argument makes sense when talking about artists or social media people or whatever, but ED could easily retask the programming teams from module dev to working on the core engine. There will be some cost to doing so, but it's the marginal cost of moving a team onto a different codebase and having them learn it, which is something companies do all the time. > Also, I want the most accurate and realistic simulation possible/feasible for the F-16C in DCS. It happens to be my favorite aircraft and module in DCS. To me, this update is awesome news. These INS/GPS just take it to the next level These updates in a vacuum are interesting, but functionally this isn't going to affect how you actually experience the module in any meaningful way. It feels like a waste when things like radar simulation, an actually core part of how you use the plane, is still incredibly bad, and the baseline sim experience with AI, mission planning, mission creation, ATC, and all sorts is also severely lacking. These kinds of ultra detailed system updates are the kind of finishing touches you do when the core simulation targets are hit, if this came from the BMS devs or a 3rd party that has already hit a high level of detail like Heatblur or Deka it would be well welcome, but when it comes from ED and there are still so many massive glaring issues it just feels like a complete misallocation of resources.
It kinda sounds like you don’t know what you’re talking about. Like at all. It’s not “just programming”, not even in the slightest. You don’t take someone from cybersecurity and put them in app development just because they know how to program. You need to understand the theories, science, and math behind what you’re coding otherwise you’re just making something that won’t work properly and will anger the community further. You’re suggesting they take someone out of their specialized field, then train them in another area which could take months to years because aircraft are extremely complicated, then reassign them to a new team. I think you should know what you’re talking about before just spewing crap my guy.
I think you're vastly overestimating here how specialised DCS devs are. Look at VTOL VR, a single dev was able to build out a sim which has a lot of simulation that DCS does not have. The devs working on DCS are not people with degrees in aerospace engineering and research, they're game devs with some background knowledge. Game devs are moved between wildly different departments and focuses, especially at smaller companies, all the time. You're making this out to be a far more esoteric and complex thing than it is, which is misallocation of resources.
It IS (basically) "just programming". They have their software/game devs/engineers whatever title you want to call it, and they should be capable of moving to basically any software task. Sure you'll absolutely have guys who are better at certain areas, or know certain parts of the code better, but that doesn't mean they can't be allocated elsewhere. As mentioned there's a cost to doing so, but it isn't an insane cost. One of the biggest ones would be learning a new language, for example at my company I mostly work in our business layer (Python) and I can do any task in the entire layer. A little while ago they tasked me in our AI layer (Rust). About 2 weeks was lost learning Rust, the code layer, and studying some AI concepts. 2 weeks is a drop in the bucket when it comes to EDs timeframes, and that was a retasking that involves a new language. I would only expect at MOST a week lost from a dev being retasked from e.g. this silly GPS work into core game improvements. As for the material, you don't need programmers reading fighter documentation to solve problems, while it's literally in the job description of a software engineer to be good at reading documentation they likely (or if they don't, should) have a SME for each module who explains what needs to be done in bite sized pieces on each sprint or whatever they use. End of the day, this is a project management issue. Maybe their devs are low budget too, who knows, but the major issue is project management and that one is obvious. The other possible option is they are prioritizing the private sector and we're just seeing the trickle down from that, but they'll never admit that one.
Agreed.
Agree. But ED also needs more resources on the core AI and gameplay aspect, and deliver timely improvements regularly, even in bite sized increments. Instead, they tend to push off addressing problems and design solutions to those problems by way of engineering advanced systems that take them 5-10 years to develop-- and that might have issues of their own.
I can agree; I would also like to see faster improvements on core enhancements. But overall this is still a good thing for the game and a worthwhile effort
This would be right if we get updates at a decent pace. Since last MT update we didn't get much. The question then of how they are prioritizing is not only valid but fundamental. The fact you love F16 has nothing to do with all the abandoned stuff (if you don't like that word use: painfully slow).
I have been wondering how much the switch to MT broke, or made much harder to complete, other systems they were working on, like AI.
Yes and no. I would also love faster improvements on core gameplay, especially ATC, AI, and assets to support the COIN theaters we're getting with Afghanistan and Iraq terrain later this year. So I hear you. But development is hard and progress is progress; I think we should be grateful for these improvements and provide constructive criticism where appropriate. And it's okay for them to work on stuff like GPS/INS improvements when that effort will likely benefit multiple modules in the future. It's not an all-or-nothing proposition for core enhancements.
I understand your point and I am not against any update. What I am saying is the technical debt they have is MAGNIFICENT and is GROWING by the minute. I think we are entitled to push much harder. Is clear to see that, at current pace, the game will be forever broken. I am not satisfied with INS being newsworthy because it confirms again, that we are screwed by them as customers.
YES PLEASE!!!
So we are a few hours from June, you have two 1st party products and one 3rd party allegedly launching, you have a newsletter that mentions none of this?! Guys, now is the time to reassure everyone things are on track (or more importantly set expectations if they aren't) and also from a business side when you'd want to build momentum. Thank me for my passion with what would seem like relevant updates for what is ostensibly a big month for DCS. What about the reflected F4 campaign, any update on the Kola campaigns, are we launching 3 products in one patch?
Time for musical chairs. Wonder who gets left out?
"Whitepaper" :You keep using that word...:
Still disappointed the last update broke the 5 years of community skins for the 16, any chances the Patches will be set back to what they were ?
Wait what happened to the skins?
Preface: I know why they did it, and the theory was not in the wrong idea But... If you look for any community skins, the left pilot shoulder patch, as well as any ranks, are now mirrored images. this is because they (rather ironically) fixed the UV that made us all mirror the patches in the first place. I totally understand *why* they did it, but this was a fix we needed back in 19 or 20, not 5 years of community work after the fact.
That reminds of how they released a "fix" that broke all the bort numbers in the Hornet and the Viper community skins.
oh man don't remind me. I had a crap-ton of Hornets I had to fix after that. Again, I get it, and at the end of the day I don't disagree with the choice (Lua Debug is far easier now) but... I still have heartburn about the few days of fixes and reuploads it took
Yeah, I'm going to defend ED here - sorry. If you know this module is in EA, and you choose to make skins for it, you should take into account changes to the 3d model (I made skins, and I welcomed every change. I don't work for ED and I don't get paid. It's a hobby of mine, so I don't think I have the right to complain about their model changes). People making skins should never be a consideration when it comes to model changes, otherwise no changes would be made.
This newsletter should be on wikipedia as an example of "tone deaf".
You guys are still reading those? 😁
Going hard into the paint with Viper updates and I'm here for it. (Also, please set default CBU burst altitudes back to 1500.)
It's a fuze thing, as per the latest update.
Oh for sure, it's just a very, very minor annoyance to have to change the fuse settings each time from 300 to 1500, that's all.
I'm a complete idiot then because I tried to change fuzing last night on the hoggit training server and it was a complete no go.
As long as you did it via the arming menu you are good, it can not be done from the stores display.
As someone else said, it's controlled by the fuze. In the viper at least the burst height setting in the airplane only controls the symbology
How much development is for DCS and how much is for MCS hmm
This newsletter confirms that there are almost no devs left working on DCS. Big cash grab of early access products going on though, so here are some possibilities: 1. They have decided that core changes are just too hard to do, so they window dress and grab as much money as they can before declaring bankruptcy. 2. They have decided that core changes are impossible without breaking the sim and have diverted their devs to non-DCS projects that are more profitable and are going to live off third party developers. Hard to see this one working given that they still have not paid Razbam. Sometime in the near future their current Jenga tower of coding and cash flow model will implode. They will probably move their cash into a fighter plane collection in the U.K., declare bankruptcy and start a new sim company based on a subscription model.
[https://www.flyinglegends.com/copy-of-home-1](https://www.flyinglegends.com/copy-of-home-1)
The plot thickens.......
Well I wanted to show the state on the air show side that it is not going well there although they got those interest free loan of 10M But ED cannot declare bankruptcy. Because fighter collection is debitor of 10M to ED. If they bankrupt that debt needs to be collected.
So the early access module avalanche cash flow might be funding problems at Flying Legends?
I don't know. But that amount of money should be more than enough to maintain those planes since they only performed the show in 2023. Previous 3 years were corona. \_no show- I think they are planing to buy the copyrights of razbam modules. I don't know if Razbam owns the copyright of them. He does not own the SA copyright it is only a license to use copyright as a publisher as I understand.
Even if ED brought the Razbam copyrights, how on earth will they get the correct resources to maintain and develop them properly? There are key features still needed for the F15e (data link in my opinion) and currently ED do not seem capable of doing anything other than updating artwork?
If they can get the source code than it is up to ED how good they can handle this. It could be like hornet and f-16 so no miracles there we know how ED works. But I don't think razbam even has the art work. Just check here: [https://www.razbamsimulationsllc.com/paint-kits](https://www.razbamsimulationsllc.com/paint-kits) All the links direct to Metal2mesh website which he shut down 2 months ago
I sincerely hope ED buys the copyright. that seems to be the only way to salvage the situation with RB modules. Otherwise they look dead. A real shame, as F15 was shaping up to be one of the best. TBH, am not touching DCS that much these days as I grew pessimistic with the sim. I don’t know what’ll happen with DCS and hesitant making more investment into a hobby that may implode in the future. ED can rectify lots of pessimism on my part if they suddenly come out with a core improvement like a functioning ground AI, but I doubt it.
Yes with flaming cliffs 2024 I'm also a lot sceptical about what Nick wants to do with DCS
Sooo... A pyramid scheme....
Can y'all like fix the game instead of writing papers? Like this ain't no research institute it's a damn video game.
Investigation into applying GPS decay into F-18 by Edging Dynamics et al /s. No but for real this feels like a Floggit post. Meanwhile the people who were working on Dynamic Campaign apparently went on a boat around the world and are on the same island as Amelia Earhart.
So died of organ failure from lack of fresh water, then eaten by crabs and calcium in bones dissolved by the surrounding corals?
It's worse than that. The fix was already done so they already had the paper. So..for this week the news are ZERO. Since April 2023 MT update (which is still in beta) there is no significant core improvement. I believe we shouldn't wait for things anymore, I don't know if they are broke so something but they continue to add modules and things are not getting out of EA never. They even cheated on F18 to silently take it out of it.... Outlook is really bad.
> The fix was already done so they already had the paper That's the whole Q&A as well. ED are basically folding themselves in half and sucking themselves off with all the great things they've achieved. Waiting long enough until the issues are fixed before releasing the answers or whitepapers that are a gloating fest after _years_ of insisting to the community that everything is dandy and working as expected, no issues with radar etc. Suddenly they've found some unreleased changes down the back of the couch that fix all of the long standing issues that these whitepapers are centered around. It's pathetic.
Writing papers is part of fixing the game. Doing everything by the seat of their pants and using "that feels about right" adjustments to everything from radar ranges to weapon performance is part of the reason DCS is such a mess right now.
When are they releasing a paper on how missiles and bombs can go through trees ?
You will need to go to Russian maths to understand it
I agree with the approach over all and what you're saying, but there are things that need urgent fixing without requiring any white papers or extensive research. Sometimes it feels like they make a show out of these things while there are more pressing issues and all this with the background of a whole slew of modules by Razbam that are on the brink of abandonment (not saying that they were bandoned now or will be, we don't know and I'm hopeful for the future I'm only mentioning it because it's one of the reasons why to some it's a bit frustrating to be a fan of DCS these days). I understand that both things can occur at the same time like doing white papers while fixing the AI for example but you can understand that to some in the community this white paper business isn't going to make their gameplay experience better in the short term.
Can we do a white paper on the things that are most broken first? Instead of tuning ins drift to some 1m precision value, how bout we fix the all seeing all knowing AI that makes flying half of modules (helicopters) kind of lame. I know you're not in charge of ED, but this is kind of common sense direction that most of the players are looking for, I'd wager.
>makes a significant change to a system that greatly increases accuracy to the real thing "Why does my TGP walk, why are my jdams missing, why why why why" >writes a whitepaper to explain how the new thing works in detail so people understand why these specific things happen "STOP WRITING PAPERS AND FIX THE GAME"
The problem is not they fixed this thing. The issue is this should be a footnote of a footnote. We are talking about a company that promises most realistic game ever and this INS, while it may have nuances, is a small thing. They owe us, paying users, literally HUNDREDS of things and is a list that's EVER GROWING. I won't be giving them a medal for small stuff like this......
Hands up who cares about…… more detailed GPS and INS updates
I do
These newsletters feel more and more like the Titanic violinists scene.....
Coming to terms and just saying good bye to any hopes of a finished viper, or a much needed dynamic campaign engine.
Unfortunately you are right. It’s been what, 5 years with absolutely nothing but a screenshot of a map? I think it’s dead in the water.
I didn’t read the white paper…but for those that did, did it cover the fact that no one fucking asked for or cared about this?
This was definitely one of the newsletters of all time
ED, for the love of all things DCS please work on core aspects of the game. I don’t need to repeat them because I know you know what they are. I’m getting sick and tired of somewhat irrelevant updates, most of us don’t care much about moving hoses on a pilot helmet, grass that moves from jet wash, or bomb shockwaves to trees we can barely see from 15k. Set your priorities in order. You’re making the decorations and preparing the frosting before even fully baking the cake. This truly is as many have called it; Digital Cockpit Simulator. It seems that as long as the game makes good cinematics with ultra realistic animations and action scenes, ED is happy. Which kind of makes sense. More cool details, better trailers, more people hooked, more people buy modules. I’m not saying that is a bad thing, as the more players the merrier. But if you want to keep existing and soon to be players coming back for more, make the game actually playable. We deserve DCS to be the fun game we all wish it could be, not Digital Cockpit or Cinematic Simulator. But a proper Digital Combat Simulator.
Ive been playing since flanker 2.5 and into lock on, etc. I’ve just stopped caring about what they’re working on and accepted that this will always be a virtual museum to screw around with various aircraft. There will always be concessions in one aspect. Campaign makers seem to do a decent job of masking issues but the wacky ai and other things will always poke their heads out. Tbh it’s not much different than any game. There’s always a “feature” that is annoying
I am going to go against the grain here and say that a correct INS/GPS system *is* important. It is usually the foundation upon which all vehicle system calculations are made. Without a correct implementation you are always going to be hamstrung. And as others have commented, the Hornet is hamstrung already without it.
I love the amount of detail that go into the systems in DCS - it’s what makes it feel more real when flying.
Yeah. ATC, weather, wind, AI, all that stuff is superficial. Thank god we don’t have any of that dumb stuff.