Not going to get any pushback from me. Solid points.
Brace for impact! 
No, not really. I agree that DCS lacks game. Don’t agree that Normandy looks and performs that bad though. 
I think ED were hoping for more external developers jumping on the project and starting to churn out content, while ED supplied the the game to do it in.
But making content for a game in perpetual development isn’t easy. Suddenly you need to go back and change every mission in the campaign you sold, because some trigger logic changed…
And with the level of detail in the aircraft modules, you just don’t jump into the fray making a completely new theatre of operations, with a bunch of aircraft and a map, because that’s a huge investment.
But maybe if ED iron out the wrinkles and can present a more finished product, maybe we can get more content creators that will give us the ”game” we want…
But in the end of the day, it is what it is.
I wish combat flightsimming was as popular as Fortnite. Then we might have several different developers fighting for our attention and money, so we could really vote with our wallets.
7 Likes
You see, I totally agree with you AND I totally agree with me (to feel otherwise would be the definition of insanity). But there is a trap. I’ve been setting it for a generation. You are setting it now. Let’s call it “Poor Russia”. Poor Russia is how we defend this continuous development model. It is noble. And it isn’t necessarily wrong. But these Poor Russians have been successfully selling simulators since before a quarter of Mudspikers were born, probably. ED was likely a full-time team of two or three when Flanker hit the stores. Now they number in the dozens at least—with piecework adding to that a staff of hundreds. No, they are not EA (thank the gods!). But they are by any definition a successful, albeit smallish, global developer.
They are wonderful people, ED. As are 777. They listen to us and patiently explain why things are the way they are. They have given me much more joy than my money has purchased. Sometimes though… 
1 Like
I think part of this can be placed on the theme of DCS as a sandbox game/simulator. There’s maps and assets provided, but it’s on the user to do things with them. The problem then becomes creating scenarios is a full time job and the more a scenario tries to do, the more likely things are to come apart at the seams. On top of this, the sandbox nature isn’t sandbox enough, so you’re still restricted in what you can do – without getting into the problem that to make compelling scenarios, you also have to know your way around scripting to achieve comparatively simple things. For example, if I want to have a rotating patrol of aircraft that will take off, patrol, land, then fire up another patrol to take their place, my choices are complex trigger conditions or a script snippet. It shouldn’t be that hard, but it is.
I’d really like for DCS to be more open about GUI, cutscenes, etc. and allow mission creators far more flexibility in creating a narrative, but ED feels that this isn’t necessary and that the status quo is good enough. Perhaps, coming from OFP/ArmA, I’ve been spoiled by what we can do in the face of problematic AI, physics, and assets.
5 Likes
Yeah, they are. ED are a talented bunch!
But the thing is, if they were really successful and could print their own money, someone else would want a piece of the action…
Maybe we can pin our hopes to MSFS2020 to once again spread the joy of flightsimming to the masses? What we need is kids like we once were. The kind that couldn’t get enough of airplanes.
The general publics love of aviation is lost, and we need to find it again.
And until we do, there won’t be enough flightsimmers around to split the bill.
On the other hand, I see almost daily new threads pop up on hoggit about how to this or that very basic thing in DCS, because they just found out about it, fell head over heels in love with it and want to know how to load the nevada terrain or some such thing.
3 Likes
The largest problem I’ve seen is with the AI. The AI FM is just so out of this world unfair that it makes it a bear to play unless you’re doing PvP.
2 Likes
I find that setting the levels in a mission is a must. Go up against 4 Exellent AI and you are done! I am setting leaders as high and wingmen as good. I am about to move up to all HIgh. But you need luck all the time. Im getting lucky in the Jug and the Messer lately. 
Ever wondered about the skill naming convention (Average-Good-High-Excellent)? In what world is average the lowest end of the scale 
Below Average and Poor are flying a cargo planes full of rubber dog-poop out of Japan…
I’ve been informed it is Hong Kong…I resign my Top Gun credentials until I enroll in remedial training…
4 Likes
Really…? You had to do this to me…!
2 Likes
That would be China today.
Japan only makes high quality silicone dog poop suitable for framing.
2 Likes
Was it Hong Kong
I’ve lost the edge. I’m turning in my wings.
5 Likes
What? You guys don’t throw TopGun quotes at eachother, all day, at your gig?
I have a friend who did a few years flying cargo in and out of HK. He promised me a rubberdogshit that he flew out of there, but never delivered. He got me all sorts of other crap, but all I really wanted was a genuine RDS flown outta HK…
2 Likes
No…we prefer to emulate our Sky Gods when we quote things…
“Comin’ up on twenty years of service…uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuhhhhhhhhhh”
4 Likes
Im gonna go ahead and land this baby in vegas, because uh, who wants to go to tuscon anyway?
3 Likes
For anyone wondering about night flying in Normandy 2.0, the following airfields have runway lighting if the date is set to 1946 onwards.
(Runway lighting, no taxiway lighting)
- Creil
- Evreux
- Needs Oar Point
- Tangmere
- Ford
- Odiham
- Beauvais-Tille
- Triqueville
- Poix
- Orly
- Stoney Cross
- Amiens-Glisy
- Gravesend
- Saint-Andre-de-lEure
(Threshold spotlights only, no runway or taxiway lights)
- Cormeille-en-Vexin
- Frecamp-Benouville
- Friston
- Deanland
11 Likes
What a great find! Thank You
2 Likes