That’s how I understand it would work. Need some mech. to allow more people to write code for the DCS engine (to include terrains creation/modification), then split the profits.
It seems like, maybe, what they have now. How, for example, did PMDG get where they are (were, I’ve not kept track) on the MSFS platform? Did MSFT get a cut of every sale of their B-737NG? I assumed they did. If so what was the mech. for this? Just wondering.
Maybe someday AI (not holding my breath) will make software, especially a one-off, unique and complicated (akin to an operating system) piece like DCS easy and quick but it takes a LOT to create this stuff. And it’s a tiny, tiny market of people that want different things.
As I said above, I think you have to be crazy to try it - at some level you have to love what you are doing (the people pounding the keyboard). But I’m glad they did, yet frustrated at the same time cos they don’t have a few things I like. So, what to do?
@JediMaster said it better than I:
Sure, opening up for module and map creation, would probably be a good idea. But aren’t they already? Opening up for open source core development, however…?
I thought that the Kiowa launch went particularly well, albeit it was in development for a long time. Likewise, even though it’s in EA, the HB F-4E, seemed to have enough right with it to keep the critics at a minimum. And HB was quick to fix the main issues. Stated goals met reasonably well.
The one “good” thing about ED’s approach to DCS is that I can jump in to pretty much any server I can see in the server browser and play. Sure, some aircraft might show up as Su-27s instead of what they actually are, but I can play.
If somebody significantly “fixed” DCS to their liking, we’re looking at a fracturing of the community like what happened to Falcon in the early 2000s with FreeFalcon vs BMS. That ended reasonably happily, but there was a lot of duplicated effort and you had to choose between graphics (FF) and flight model and bugfixes (BMS) if my memory serves me of the situation…
One major reason ED will never go open source is their MIL contracts. My understanding is that is what drives the bus on profits and therefor development. Same with Steel Beasts. Even if the DCS we use is a separate entity for legal/contract purposes you couldn’t use any of the open source developed material in a commercial product, and you can’t share certain things that are in the MIL version in the public version. Leading to spending money to develop and maintain two separate products that are competing with each other at the same time.
Ah. Wasn’t aware.
I’m going to be brutally honest here:
I do not think nor have I claimed that DCS as a whole is “broken” or “bad,” nor am I taking these bugs and things personally. I’m frustrated at recent and very obvious trends that others either aren’t noticing or don’t care about.
I’m frustrated at emotional outbursts and the litany of logical fallacies I face whenever I gripe about something reasonable. Case in point, how is anyone supposed to reply to this?
I wish I could explain in details what happens but I cannot.
And just in case it wasn’t clear/I didn’t brag about enough I am a closed beta tester.
Appeal to authority fallacy with absolutely zero hard-evidence to prove why my criticism is quote “invalid,” “nonsensical,” “clueless.” Followed up by projection by accusing my statements of being pointless when the respons itself is what’s pointless. And later in the discussion projection accusing me of taking these bugs personally when it’s clearly the closed beta testers taking customer dissatisfaction and criticism personally enough to go on a tirade implying the critic is too stupid to understand what goes on behind the scenes with the pointed comments and the general “you have no idea” attitude I quoted above. Now that I do take personally.
I also have to have a laugh at the whole ED slogan of “thank you for your passion and support” when they can’t handle passionate customers. If they weren’t passionate they wouldn’t be making criticisms! Peak shockedpikachu.jpg and “not like that” meme energy.
I learned my lesson. This is not the poper environment to voice criticisms of DCS.
I had to look some of that stuff up…I must get out more.
But yeah, I get it: DCS aggravates me at several levels, often. Yet I appreciate I have it. It’s that or pickle ball. Anyway, I understand.
I appreciate I have it too, but there are times where–like now–things severely impact my particular playstyle or modules that I mainly fly, and the frustration factor gets higher. Add in the negative direction recent patterns indicate DCS is heading to, when DCS is literally the only remnant left of my dreams of flying in real life, it gets even more frustrating. And yeah it does make it emotional, but despite that I’m trying to critique and think objectively about it.
There is something to say here about “touching some grass,” but in my world there’s hardly any grass left to touch.
This is going back and forth.
You are asking for hard evidence why you are wrong, but there is no hard evidence in your accusations, is there? It goes both ways.
(And just to be clear, I’m not talking about the bugs you’re describing but the accusations of prioritizing maps and not testing properly)
Let me try to explain.
First of all, testers are bound by NDA.
Second. You say that the software isn’t properly tested, because if it was, these bugs would not exist.
It’s more of a question for the developers about what bugs can we live with and still release the update. They are basically only stopping for crash bugs, major memory leaks and the kind that makes the whole game unplayable. The rest they can fix later.
The fact that it ruins the game for some, isn’t enough, sorry to say.
This doesn’t mean that the software isn’t tested properly or that the testers aren’t doing their job.
It means there isn’t time to fix everything before release.
And, quite frankly, if this is such a frustration, wouldn’t it be better to wait with updating, backdate the software or maybe skip Early Access modules completely?
You have valid points, but I have to point out that this is a Hobson’s choice given the current state of the product. Flying online with my friends on the weekend requires either updating, or having them hold off on updating too. And which modules are not Early Access? Not the official label, but in actual state? That leaves the A-10C, BS2, and perhaps the Spitfire and Mustang. That’s it. You can look at the list of modules “out” of early access and nearly all of them are still early access in reality.
To the point of the NDAs, then perhaps they shouldn’t comment at all if it can’t be elaborated on.
I remember way back around the time the Hornet came out, ED started a campaign about transparency and improving the customer experience. That lasted all of one or two years before everything regressed to the same draconic practices they had before that period, releasing modules in shoddy states (F-16, CH-47), reducing quality per dollar (F-5E remaster), lying (Hornet and Viper dev teams separate when they weren’t), refusing to acknowledge and fix issues pointed out by actual SMEs until years later, if ever, etc.
I will say that I am essentially done buying anything for DCS.
I’m talking about the label, as you call it.
Here you can see what modules are out of EA. You can sort them at the top.
https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/shop/modules/filter/status-is-release/apply/index.php
Well, sometimes you just have to take someones word for it. Especially when they have inside knowledge and you don’t.
I think that’s a wise decision on your part and will probably do you good.
Going back to my comment earlier about “actions speak louder than words”, the label is not reflective of the actual state of those modules. I prioritize reality over labels. Doubly so when the entity that applies the labels has been dishonest about things in the past. Hence the suggestion of avoiding them on paper is valid, but in reality is a Hobson’s choice. Might as well not play DCS at all at that point.
Well, I disagree with you and I’ll leave it at that.
This is not true. Some open source licenses (GPL) require you to open source derivative works, which would be problematic, but MIT/BSD license allows basically everything, such as including the code in a closed source commercial product.
This is already the case. It’s safer now because if some interface for a classified part is in the code, it’s harder to find after compilation.
When ED announced the patch I had their Discord open in the hopes of getting information that the fix was on included in the update because, yes, I am really annoyed with the Supercarriers bugs as well. People were obviously asking for it and the answer nineline gave was reasonable and disappointing at the same time. He basically said, that no, there wasn’t any fix included because the issue was not a simple fix but they are working on it and will try to push a hotfix as soon as possible. While that’s disappointing news, it is also an entirely reasonable answer to me that I can live with and there is the obvious workaround of letting the Carrier steam north. Adjusting the wind in a mission to accommodate for that is a quick fix and you can even enable the airboss to manually adjust the carriers course north during launch and recovery and then resume course after that (if there’s enough open water). In that sense this bug isn’t game breaking. What’s more annoying though is that the ball is only visible when you’re halfway in the groove but I have ICLS as a crutch and I am not letting myself get annoyed by it too much because the update included a lot of really good stuff as well.
Big releases like the Iraq map are planned well in advance and I can’t expect a company to stop a release simply because of an issue that is entirely unrelated to the new product. I think that’s the crux of the whole thing. Keep in mind that the closed beta testers are all volunteers from the community that donate their free time so we can enjoy a better product. DCS is way too niche to pay a big team of testers that can thoroughly test for every possible issue and while stuff like the Carrier bugs or the Anton canopy seem obvious issues I can understand how they slipped past during testing, especially since any unit faces north by default when placed in the editor…
Not much of a dog in this hunt here. The past few years I’ve probably flown less DCS than most on these forums. X-Plane and VTOL VR and Arma have been my go-to sims for quite a bit of time. But…now thinking back on it…I have done a lot of flying in the Ukraine Pilot Training environment…so yeah…I guess I’ve dabbled.
I guess I’m no longer a real hardcore simmer…because I just really honestly can’t get all upset at things that are broken. Generally, I recognize them, then avoid them if they make me feel some kind of way about them. I see a lot of one and zeroes in some of the arguments here though. Hate it or love it. Completely broken or the best experience ever. Hyperbole is a terrible thing to trot out into an argument. Take for instance what was probably the very worst of the ED/partner projects…the DCS Hawk. It turned out to be a massive fiasco…but I also enjoyed some time in it. Heck…if they could just make it somewhat flyable I’d be happy to tool around in it. But, of course, there is a better option in the C-101. Unless you really want to fly the Hawk. So some people can look past things and find the enjoyment from things that work.
I saw an advertisement from some 90s gaming magazine posted on a social media site the other day. The games…and we are talking like VGA graphics stuff…were approximately the same price as what we are paying for stuff nowadays. I look at something like Microprose F-15E Strike Eagle III or whatever it was called. I was bombing dots and triangles with sprites or something.
For all its flaws…when I get into DCS in VR and look at the sky colors and mist and rain and an aircraft carrier with people on it. I’m frankly in awe of it…and I guess I’m just simple…I can do a couple hours of cats and traps and feel I got money out of a flawed product that doesn’t have X % of the features that were advertised. Now…if I fired up the sim…went through 15 minutes of cold starting…got the catapult…and it launched me backwards into the island…I’d probably be mad. For maybe a half hour. I’d go play VTOL VR and remember it is my new best friend. But eventually I’d go back to DCS because it intrigues me. It doesn’t really have to be perfect. The multi-million dollar sim I fly for two weeks each year isn’t perfect and arguably it should be the closest to perfect.
I don’t know. I like the passion. Both for and against. But I’d encourage people to do things that make you happy…not grumpy. Come back to it in a bit…find the things that work AND make you happy if you really want to stay in that space. ED are a business. I don’t care that they want to retexture something or do a 3D model and sell it for $10. Read the reviews and don’t do if it isn’t worth that price of a McDonald’s meal. I eat that McDonalds in like 10 minutes and it leaves me extremely dissatisfied for a number of self-flagellating reasons. I should have saved my arteries and bought the F-5 upgrade 
One last thing. We are all friends here. No need to get twisted up about it…take a minute…consider the other perspective. Maybe consider the perspective from the perspective of the other person. Or try. Sometimes you just can’t (trust me…the last year or so has shown me that). But there is always that point where you just go…agree to disagree. One person sees rainbows and unicorns…the other sees poop and devils. The same object sits in each perspective’s view…but somehow they have reached vastly different stances on it. For whatever reason.
Do what makes you happy. If not doing something makes you happy…cool… Maybe at some point in the future it can make you happy.
Wow I typed a lot. Good times.
I for one applaud when people complain about consumer products. “Stick it to the Man!”, I say. These guys have us over the barrel with products that are so damn addictive that nobody with a brain, a heart and a need to “shack!” can say “No”. As addicts we sometimes find ourselves rocking in a fetal position on the stained linoleum floor of the meth house we call our “man cave”. After a particularly bad hit we want to lash out. For some lashing out means:
“I will gladly pay $100 for that new module with no release date and maybe help fund future fixes and improvements.”
For others, lashing out means:
“I have been burned one too many times! Those jerks in Moscow aren’t getting another cent from me!”
In my depths of sim DTs I have tried both approaches. Neither has ever worked.
Also, NDAs generally suck. If one finds himself in a position where he feels the need to mention the NDA that binds him, he’s already said too much.
So. Yeah. How about that Iraq map eh? Gosh those northern mountain ranges are gorgeous. Fast too, in both senses of the word. My PC rips them frames out quite rapidly and there’s enough stuff on yhe ground to make 500 knots feel like the breakneck speed it is.
Over Baghdad my frames tank, bit remain playable. Lots of stuff there. I love how they made it look great from angels 20 as well as from chopper height.
No buyers remorse here.