Ok, valid points about the subscription model. How about a subscription for multiplayer? It’s not that I love the idea of paying monthly for something I often go months without using. But I am sympathetic to the need to pay core developers to stay on the team even during lows in the dev cycle. I am a labor guy and a former union rep. Peeps should be paid well and paid regularly.
For my part, I have everything I need already. There are no planes or helicopters that I really desire. DCS as it stands today is just about perfect. Well, if the Falklands comes with a good campaign I will definitely get that. The thousand+ dollars I have handed over to ED is in the mirror. The future might bring in another $100 or two. But I think I am representative of legacy users where the well is drying even while the enthusiasm is still strong.
In my opinion, money is only part of the equation.
It’s very unlikely that ED would magically solve all the issues and feature requests (dynamic campaign, weather, ground AI, wingman AI, ATC, you name it) even if they had the funds to hire 50 more developers.
Software development, especially in a product with such a big (and old) code base, is complex.
Adding people to a software project will increase complexity even more.
I’m not sure what this means for the future of DCS.
My predicition:
There will be a continuous stream of new modules (personally I’d prefer more cold war era content, more likely we will see a wild mix to cater for each customer flavor with lack of focus as seen in previous years)
We will see smaller improvements to the simulation itself. I’d expect promising improvements in areas such as graphics (engine and 3D models) but not so big steps in areas with lots of interdependencies (especially AI, unfortunately)
Yeah, I gripe about the AI (all the time) but I’m happy writing my own high-level stuff (ok, not that happy but it is fun, sorta); it’s the low level stuff that frustrates me, mostly wingman issues at the moment.
I.e.
IA "Enemy Armor 3 o’clock "
Me "OK wingman, now tell me 9 more times
IA "Enemy Armor 3 o’clock " "Enemy Armor 3 o’clock " "Enemy Armor 3 o’clock " "Enemy Armor 3 o’clock " "Enemy Armor 3 o’clock "
Me I’m going to bed!
LOL! We could start a YT channel on DCS wingmen…Hmm, DCS Wingnut comes to mind as a name…
I’ve been able to mitigate the fuel thing via scripts but the rest. Ugh.
Funny thing is; I hear MP ppl complain about a lack of attention in MP yet SP types like myself see them not doing much for wingman AI cuz it’s easy to just “use a human”. But I 've really no idea what ED’s plan is in this area…
You all have hit the nail on the head in terms of the AI and it’s insane communications babble. It drives me nuts sometimes. I would kill for my AI wingman to be able to answer a query from me on “how much fuel do you have” instead of them stating…“ejecting!”
I would pay money like I do for aircraft modules just to get proper AI communication and team work actually happening in my flight.
They did do some work on the WW2 AI behavior, but they still have the physics-defying flight model and can perfectly lead their shots no matter how violently you change your vector. I’ve had the AI shoot me down in infuriating ways that wouldn’t have happened with a human.
Well not that easy… lol we need to schedule, make sure everybody is around and with a free ticket from the significan other for 2 plus hours of playtime…
Even multiplayer missions suffer too much from a lack of a good AI. It would be great to use friendly AI flights to complement the mission, but those also tend to behave like stupid wingman.
But I agree. Single Player DCS could be so much more than it is today. Multiplayer, with all the hiccups still manages to be a great experience.
F-4x - At lease one USAF and one USN/USMC
F-100x - Prefer a D or later, the early models had issues.
F-15x - Both the C and the E at a Study Sim Level (-E is in Development, -C isnt, but would be welcomed).
F-111x - Preferably a later version
A-1H Skyraider, Seeeriously
AH-1x Anything 2 Engine 4 Rotor Blades…
Mi-28 Havoc
F-105
F-104 - Later Model w/ Bigger Engine
Rafale M
F/A-18E (even if it’s an earlier Lot). (w/ -F as AI Only)
Mig-29 (Perferably a Naval Version)
Study Sim Level Su-27/33
A6Mx Zero
P-40 (Later Variant)
P-38 (Later Variant)
You and I have been around that game for years and know how bad TK is with promises and deadlines. This was another attempt to regain some cred in the PC world. He screwed the community that kept his game alive and has done it again, sadly. I didnt buy this new thing, as I didnt trust him.
One thought that occurred reading this thread that I didn’t I guess appreciate before, is that DCS is sort of a heritage flight sim, in that it’s a fantastic museum for aircraft of the past. In a civilian sim I can download and fly a current Airbus or Boeing (or a light prop I might actually fly), while in DCS it’s really about the 1990’s and backwards (20+ years ago, eek!).
As kids go to airshows today and see F-35’s and even F-22’s they won’t be able to pick up the game and fly what they see, unless it’s a heritage flight - we probably resonate with the current choices so much as the Hornet, the Harrier etc were the ones we saw flying or on the news when we were younger. It’s just the nature of the milsim industry, and if ED always stick to the ‘we only simulate things accurately to the real world’ then they are backed into the corner of always being about the past (if 20 years is the past that is).
The fact that https://fighter-collection.com/cft/ owns DCS is sort of appropriate - its about keeping the heritage alive and people interested.
Not saying there is anything wrong with that, just for me that idea didn’t really click before - DCS isn’t about modern air combat, it’s a brilliant flight museum where you get to play with the exhibits.
It drives me nuts sometimes. I would kill for my AI wingman to be able to answer a query from me on “how much fuel do you have” instead of them stating…“ejecting!”