I actually think it was a rapid improvement. I think we’ve seen a bit of a sea-change in how open they are with information and how engaged they are with the community. It has been great.
And yes, you have some good points. They have been putting a ton of resources into bringing us to “The Merge” and it is really hard to overstate the massive changes to graphics that really do make the “World” great (lighting, shadows, shaders, motion blur, explosions, smoke). Then there are all the “under the hood” changes we can’t see. The improvement to IR imagery, working on clouds, night lighting, etc… There is really a lot of work that has been done.
I think the campaign developers have done a good job of providing content to various levels. Sort of like movie tickets to an interactive story. Some are great, some are good, and some are meh…but I honestly have more than I have the time to play at the moment.
I suspect we’ll see some work on the game environment itself going forward. ATC, weather, AI…I’m sure they are all slated for improvements. I doubt there is a single person working for ED that isn’t proud of what they’ve created, and anxious to improve it even more. They seem to really like what they do, and I’m sure they’d love to have done everything we want yesterday…but it does take time and money.
Anyway - yeah, try to stay positive, and enjoy the sim for what it is now with an eye toward the future.
But just one example:
If I fly my BF109 into a cloud and change direction during combat and AI shoots me down because they can see through clouds perfectly (same for smoke columns or whatever) that’s far worse than clouds looking bad, it is game breaking for me. Same if the clouds are not synchronized in multiplayer. I don’t even know if that is fixed now, but if it is then it is a headline in my book.
I like nice graphics like everyone else, but I am a gameplay guy.
That’s why I make threads like these ones (2011 and 2016):
I really get that many people don’t care as long as everything looks cool and you can take nice screenshots. But that’s just not enough for me.
Btw this is a bit off topic, but @all is the gbu38 flight model fixed now? That’s also something that has been bothering me for years now.
I don’t like flying ww2 for some of the same reasons you’ve mentioned. But the modern jet stuff, while far from perfect, is the best available hands down.
Well, I don’t think that is true either. I think people care, recognize there are shortcomings, and hope things improve. They have improved faster in some areas than others obviously. The example you give is about the AI seeing through clouds is definitely a problem…but there are other areas where the sim is pretty good and I guess I just stick to those lanes.
There’s this politician here in the States whom I once slightly respected but over time grew to loathe. (He shares the same last name as a domestic car company). I dislike him because he always shoots right down the middle of any debate. It’s so bloody calculated. Be Right. Be Left. Just don’t be milquetoast. Well I am about to be that same guy:
No one is attacking ED here and so there is no call for me to defend them. But I will (kinda) anyway. @Aginor is, I feel, correct in most respects. But ED also deserves more credit than he is willing to freely give. They honored their promise with the NTTR map. They probably lost their shirts the day Oleg Maddox sat on his couch and told us about the future of DCS WWII (am I remembering that correctly?) But they honored that promise too. That’s two maps that I got, well not for quite free but–at least as unexpected and very much appreciated surprises. The PFM Su33 was another wonderful surprise. As was the new, gorgeous and free Caucuses update. These things would still not be able to overcome the lack of a real game and I am sure I would continue to complain as I have previously were it not for Blue Flag. Blue Flag (aka “Buddyspike”) has made DCS a game very much worth playing night after night. It makes learning every corner of the map a must. Because of this, I can pay all that money and know that I am going to squeeze dozens of hours of gameplay out of any new map–albeit because of content provided by a 3rd party. For me, the slope of improvements over the last two years have been steep. ED’s foray into VR started very early and is still being improved. AI will certainly need to be the next holy grail. Then we can finally have a real PvE experience. I think they will do it and I think they will do it relatively soon. Two Falcon weeks? Maybe three?
I share Aginor’s frustrations (mine is the currently broken lighting model which turns the cockpit and the A-10c TGP to a murky soup at night), but the coordinated PvP and PvE elements of the Blue Flag server keep me coming back to this simulator regularly.
OK @Aginor you wrote that as I was writing my bit above. That reads like a cheap shot because it seems directed at the people who seek and are getting an experience that is every bit as valid as the one you want. It’s a bit like, “I see that you are still enjoying that swill Walmart passes off for wine. I’ll be in my cellar.”
Sorry that’s not what I meant @smokinhole, I do not intend to attack ED nor people who put graphics above gameplay (or what I consider being important for gameplay), those views are absolutely as valid as mine.
I also see that people enjoy playing it despite its shortcomings (I do that, too! Just not as much as I think I could if only a few of those things were fixed).
And yes, the WW2 debacle was - in my opinion at least - handled very well by ED and I agree 90% with what they did there. And I know that impacted DCSW quite a bit, in fact I am sure it cost them at least a year of development, probably way more!
Did Matt once again allude to the dynamic campaign in the most recent You Tube (posted last night maybe?)…I thought I heard someone mention it. I hope it becomes a priority. And ATC and a bit more dynamic weather.
Man, that will be glorious.
Fingers crossed that it isn’t “just” graphics. Although at this point even I would be happy with that! It would really make the graphical experience practiacally perfect. The contrails and vapor stuff certainly shows how nice particle effectss can look and the rain over the canopy is amazing in making you feel in the weather.
The tough part for ED when it comes to communication is wanting to tell people what they want to do, but temper expectations into realistic development times. I think in the not so distant past they preferred to say less, I think now they are swinging the other way, but we as fans/customers have to remember that all this takes time, and it has to be done in a way that still generates revenue for ED doors to stay open.
I did forget as (@smokinhole mentioned) about ED’s early adoption and development of VR. I think that is going to pay dividends in the near future (it already is for some of us).
I’ll be really interested to see how this aircraft carrier, operations, and ATC works out with regards to the Hornet and enhancing the naval ops side of things. I know it is a passion for many on the team and I think we are going to see some pretty cool stuff coming.
And that’s ok. But for me it is exactly the other way round. I mostly play SP out of time constraints and I want an immersive experience.
And I even think it would help a lot in MP.
I am a guy who (for example) could live with FSX graphics in a sim, but the lack of ATC (and other gameplay aspects) bother me a lot. Of course I know that a good AI is a huge task, and also that good graphics and good gameplay are not mutually exclusive (different developers and so on).
But that is what is missing in my opinion to make DCSW what it should be. There is that huge discrepancy between the detail level of planes and that of the world concerning functionality.
