I’ve seen a few claims that there’s been “plenty” of core improvements/fixes, but I haven’t seen a single person provide an itemized list to go up against the itemized list of core issues that haven’t been fixed or improved, some of them going all the way to LOMAC/FC2 (good old high-school and college days on my dad’s PC right there; still used the same X52 up until two years ago).
From memory, the only core fixes/improvements I can recall are:
Speedtrees (which have now become performance hogs again)
Clouds
WW2 damage model
Auto-generated tasks for AI placed in the ME (with many of the tasks themselves still buggy)
Of those the only one that actually improved playability was the WW2 damage model.
I agree that ED started showing the will to change things sometime after the Viper fiasco, but since the Hind and Mossie release they started reverting to their old selves with locking away files that users used to be able to access to fix longstanding issues that ED still hasn’t bothered with and are literally just a single value in a single line in a single lua file (looking at you, broken F-86 gun sight) and going from transparency with roadmaps to declaring they will no longer publicize roadmaps. The cherry on top is their copyright strike abuse that Jabbers mentioned, plus them trying to take down Steam reviews that have any negative comments. I’ve given them the benefit of the doubt for 7 years, and if there’s been any long-term change then I guess I just haven’t seen it. I’ve only seen short-term change. Two steps forward, one step back. Sometimes two steps back.
I think we are unlikely to see such a list, because that would be a serious task of going through all the update logs over the years.
But it’s not nothing as Mr. Jabbers claims. Or…frackin’ nothing, as it were
If we are compiling a list, I’d like to add VR and subsequent improvements.
Forgot to mention that the upcoming FLIR model will be a welcome core improvement. What I dislike is that the only driving force for that is the Apache. Even so what are we going to do with the Apache other than standoff Hellfire plinking because the AI still has god-teir aim, LOS through terrain and objects, and zero suppression logic? I was expecting the Mossie and Hind to be the driving force behind fixing those, but here I am still getting 360 no-scoped by a hand-cranked 20mm while I’m screaming between trees at 300+ mph in the Wooden Wonder…
Nobody is saying DCS doesn’t have issues.
But I don’t think Jabbers is correct either.
The truth, the way I see it, lies somewhere in between.
Nobody else does what DCS does. DCS does a lot of things really good, and some things really bad, and the complete spectrum in between…
It’s not black or white, all or nothing, to me.
I can see that when I think about Jabber’s comments more literally. One thing I hate with the English language is the tendency for people to say “nothing” or “everything” when they really mean “a lot of things but not literally everything/nothing,” which is what I think Jabbers means here. I’d call it poorly worded rather than wrong. He’s clearly fed up with explaining each point and threw it all into a category of absolutes.
As for core improvements:
WW2 AI and carrier landing ATC, while not global, are two big improvements from recent years related to core sim issues (AI and ATC).
Not sure if this is in other AI yet, but WW2 AI will now disengage when they are in a bad position rather than continue to yo-yo indefinitely.
Of course we would rather have all AI and ATC fixed to this degree, and the fact that this one ATC improvement has only come to a monetized part of the base game is a shame. But there is progress, at least.
And it is understandable that a full AI and ATC overhaul is a big project and not something you do in a few months.
Why they won’t just tweak the LUA to make ground units a bit less accurate is more frustrating to me.
Whatever the reason, it’s the same reason they haven’t tweaked the LUAs to fix the F-86 gun issues, the Supercarrier deck crew unsweep signal for the F-14A, and the P-51 canopy open/close assignments. Those have been frustrating to me too, mainly the F-86 because it’s keeping me away from playing Hunters over the Yalu (plus the slighty improved AI logic not programmed in jets yet).
Nuance may be a French word. But the principle is fully available in English. He chose to avoid nuance because […] actually I don’t know why. (I originally said “because moderate language doesn’t sell t-shirts”) But that would place me in the same trap I think he is in. I then claim for myself the ability to read the motivations of others.
The AAA recently got an improvement which helps mission builders add realistic flak by avoiding the one shot one kill scenario.
My personal gripe is the P-51 carburetor ram air lever being broken in 2.7. It’s 2 digits in two adjacent lines of code in a LUA to fix. Takes me about 30 seconds to find and edit the file. Yet if you are flying the P-51 above the point where the auto controlled supercharger engages, around FL22, the ram air lever is inoperative, robbing the Mustang of about 25% of its power. A very unhealthy state to be in during bomber escort missions. 109Fs will eat you for lunch. Yet, fix the LUA and you are on even terms at altitude. It leaves someone without this bit of knowledge questioning both the flight model and their ability. Been this way for most of last year.
I assume because he’s burned out and frustrated with having to explain the exact same thing for the nth time. Been there myself.
I’m still getting one-shot killed unless it’s in one of Reflected’s campaigns lol. I came across a thread the other day indicating that the AAA improvement may not be working on MP, and when I’m not flying a campaign I’m exclusively using my dedicated server to get around performance and track replay issues, so that might be why.
Wait, it’s totally INOP now? For a while I thought it was working if you mapped it to an axis.
Mapping it to an axis still works, but by editing the LUA, Ediit: it functions in the cockpit as clickable, like when doing the C&D startup, or when operating from a grass strip. Probably more relevant if you fly in VR and more rely on what you see vs feel. The point is, it’s such a simple fix that would save newbs from a lot of aggravation. If they don’t spend time in the Mustang ED forum, they most likely won’t have a clue that it’s broken. Scenario: I’m a newb, follow the startup procedures and move the lever with the mouse, get up and running, go fly the mission, and get my ass handed to me, unsure of what I’m doing wrong.
And that’s a huge issue since the free TF-51 has the same bugs as the P-51D module. I understand the Su-25T has its fair share of issues as well. We should start a campaign to get noobs started on the A-4E mod instead
I have a guess their reasoning behind it is they tend to resist balancing tables and random number massaging if they can, instead having things happen in a propper simulated logic. So instead of turning accuracy down to 60% they keep this developing hole waiting for the day somebody write a full algorithm simulating real logic and limitations.
Maybe it has to do with their other contracts using DCS engine, maybe they just get lost messing around adjusting numbers. Maybe they don’t want them to stop working after some update and never finding the reason why.
It’s their design philosophy and I can respect it. It makes for the good and the bad of DCS.
I agree with Jabbers. Thank god I’m not burned out, because DCS is awesome. But there are some sides of the game development that suffer from their current “module oriented” business model.
No Model is perfect, but their deficiencies should be pointed out. We want a more balanced approach from their development, not only new modules to learn, but also more improvements to the core gameplay. The main game is learning new aircraft and that’s what the money you spend go into. Sometimes they manage to get some extra income selling enhanced core mechanics that should be part of the main thing inside some package such as combined arms or supercarrier (I really hate it). But they have zero financial incentive to add more stuff outside of their module learning gameplay.
So I also would like better core gameplay, AI, mission building tools, I am willing to pay for it. I can even buy modules I don’t intend to fly just to get them, hell I have more than a couple modules I bought and never flown, just because I really think all the hours I put into DCS are work more of my money…
Bottom line is that I want more from DCS and I definitely think it’s ok for people to be vocal and ask for it.
Sometimes I wonder about that too. I’m unsure how different their professional “Battle Simulator” is from DCS, but I assume it’s from the same base code. The pro versions of DCS used by the ANG and Armee de l’air seem to be more for TTPs. Real pilots are going to be dropping warheads on foreheads from high altitude, so surface-to-air gunnery doesn’t need to be simulated there, and no one notices any faults that already exist.
The people have spoken. What do we want? CORE SIM UPDATES. I hope ED is listening to this and not just getting butt hurt over it. I’ve been a huge fan and supporter of the company and the sim since 2012. I own almost every module and map. In the last several years I’ve tried to get into many other games and I just end up back in DCS. I just love military aviation so much and its really all we have at the moment.
Yes of course we’ve seen a slow trickle of improvements over the last few years but as you all know many things desperately need to be updated and fixed. My policy of buying modules to support the further development of the sim doesn’t appear to working as I intended it to. Jabbers is right, money we spend on new aircraft modules goes mostly into more aircraft modules. That was great up until a point but now we have a healthy collection of full fidelity modules with several third parties working on even more.
If ED were to announce tomorrow that they are working on a huge update this year that include many of things we are asking for I would happily throw money at that instead of another module. Instead we’re likely to continue to get a drip feed of updates and fixes here and there. I can completely understand why people are getting frustrated with this.
