it’ll totally be worth it when the wait is over though
2 Likes
I can’t understand how the 2.5 update isn’t the highest priority for them. Having a divided customer base between versions/maps is a terrible idea.
Oh, right. Their highest priorities are revenue generating: NTTR, Normandy, Spitfire. Release new money grabs instead of fixing old problems.
Let’s not be hasty.
If they do not generate revenue, then they certainly do not generate fixes. Economic circumstances can dictate focus.
Plus we do not know the technical challenges that can be prohibiting a merge to DCS World 2.5. Off hand I can think of a dozen (or more) times that software companies I have worked for were forced to delay a merge. It’s not unreasonable to see.
3 Likes
Remember that 2.5 is necessary for new, revenue generating, maps… So development goes hand in hand, so to speak. And code punchers probably aren’t the same guys as the artists doing the textures, maps and campaigns.
I don’t think two different core development branches is optimal, but they sort of have to keep 1.xx since Caucasus isn’t ready for the EDGE engine and the 2.xx branch.
And I don’t see how not releasing 2.0 would’ve helped us customers neither. We do supply a great deal of feedback while development continues.
We can complain and moan about the development of DCS until the cows comes home, but ED has been doing this for a while, and they have a pretty good track record, IMO. They have a plan, and there is logic to the madness if you look for it.
DCS is a very ambitious project. If making flightsims of this magnitude was easy, and generated a lot of money, everybody would do it. The fact that everybody doesn’t tells us something, doesn’t it…?
And of course ED has to make money from this. What would the alternative be…?
It’s not the delay that’s frustrating me. You’d have to be blind to not know that was coming.
It’s that they’re prioritizing the new projects over finishing the old.
I’d rather have promises fulfilled on products we’ve already paid for than get yet another early access product.
I’m not up in arms, and I fully understand that I bought early access items, but I don’t believe I’m out of line to be frustrated.
1 Like
Ok. You said you couldn’t understand how 2.5 isn’t the main focus.
I tried to explain how it can, and must be, in center of focus even if new content is being developed. There is a logic in this, if you chose to see it that way. If you don’t, everything looks like a trainwreck. Now, ED are clearly underestimating the labour involved, or they wouldn’t bust their estimates all the time. OTOH, there can be many reasons for this. Getting new info, like they say in the friday info, is one. Underestimating the complexity of the systems, another… Now, would we want them to release content that isn’t as close to reality as it can be? If the singe system HYD pressure is off by 10%, they will hear it. 
And feel free to be frustrated for whatever reason! I’m not.
The quality of Nevada, their jets, etc. are without a doubt excellent. But I would say in time estimation especially when it comes to maps ED’s track record is about as horrendous as you can get. Generally a fall/winter eta for something equates to a summer/fall release date the following year, or year after, or year after. It’s a testament to the quality of their work they maintain such a customer base.
I’m kind of with @boomerang10 on this. I’m not reaching for my torch and pitchfork, but this is moderately frustrating. Nevada needed the improvement it’s getting, but while I enjoy the WWII stuff, I don’t see how Normandy is a higher priority than integrating 2.5. If I had to guess they want/need more money, which I can understand. However from a consumer point of view I certainly don’t view this as optimal.
2 Likes
Well, this is my point…
How can the map have a higher priority, when 2.5 is needed to use the map…?
ED can’t make money from the new maps until 2.5 is out.
I don’t see a conflict there.
2.5 is needed to integrate Caucus with the terrain improvements of 2.0. Normandy, Nevada, and ostensibly Hormuz can all exist on the 2.0 engine as it is now. Those maps don’t need 2.5. They could sell them now if they were done. All 2.5 does is allow players who can’t or won’t pay for the new maps to exist in the same executable as EDGE.
“A key part of DCS World 2.5 will be the unification of the Caucasus and Nevada maps (and all other future maps)”
So 1.2 is your legacy DCS World.
1.5 is the legacy Black Sea map with the new rendering engine and shaders.
2.0 is the new map engine (T4) with the new rendering engine and shaders.
2.5 is a complete remodel of the Black Seain the T4 standard, and integration with 2.0.
All new maps. Nevada, Hormuz, Normandy, work in 2.0. They are all built using the same terrain engine, and can function fine. If they released Normandy tomorrow, it would work in 2.0.
2.5 only exists as a means to get the old terrain working with the new terrain engine. Once 2.5 is released, of course all maps will work with it because it is the terrain engine from 2.0.
Well, applying that logic, there’s no reason why Caucasus couldn’t be integrated into 2.0…
2.0 is a test (alpha) release of EDGE to test NTTR (and EDGE). The unification of maps comes in 2.5.
So, no new maps will be released before 2.5. No?
Edit: Sorry for derailing. I just wanted to address @boomerang10 claim that ED isn’t focusing on getting 2.5 out. I just don’t see where that comes from, as the priorities have been stated that 2.5 comes before new maps. And if you think about it, given that priority; is it likely ED said “drop what you’re doing on 2.5 and get crackin’ on that map!”?
Troll, the Caucasus is an old map, and doesn’t work with ED’s latest T4 terrain engine technology. Obviously Nevada, Normandy and Hormuz are built using ED’s latest T4 tech. That’s why those would work on 2.0, but not the Caucasus.
ED is updating the Caucasus to the T4 tech for free. But it seems to take longer than expected. I can understand the frustrations. But it’s usually worth the wait in the end.
Yes, I know.
What I meant was that ED is planning the integration of other maps from 2.5, not before.
Hence, the development of 2.5 goes along together with new maps, not at the cost thereof…
If the focus lie on Normandy and the Spitfire now, it’s possible Normandy will be released for 2.0
I guess that’s possible…
But it has been my impression that they wouldn’t release another map in the alpha build of 2.0.
But hey, anyway, I’m not worried or frustrated about any of this
The reason of 2.0 still being referred to as Alpha might be because the free to play content (old Caucasus and T-Frog) need to be in the stable Release.
The issue for ED might be that they have to choose to either generate revenue by releasing stuff in the Alpha version or make the free to play content a dead end (technology wise).
I cannot blame them that they chose the revenue path, especially considering that WW2 stuff was promised and already paid by customers.
I hope the merge is completed soon, though.
1 Like
The WWII stuff was kickstarted by a different company, it’s a money drain for them so yeah, they need to get it out there. Even though they didn’t screw up they are still honouring the promises of that company so kudos to them.
1 Like
Also just keep in mind that the original plan was to basically port over Caucasus, keep the old terrain features and slap on the new lighting engine from 2.0. The scope has expended since the initial announcement and it looks like they are bringing up the quality to something closer to Nevada.
well after having a big long think on all of this. And taking in all factors, I believe I have a solution that can alleviate any tension/frustration now or in the future.
And the answer is (some of the more astute of you already know where this is heading)…
… TO DELAY EVERYTHING UNTIL A MULTICREW FULL FIDELITY F111 IS FLYABLE…
BOOM!
6 Likes