homepage Forums Air Combat & Civil Aviation DCS World Campaign after Campaign - ED's new focus

Everything , is what is funny about that

Say something that ED does not like on SOMEONES ELSES FORUM and get banned at ED forums ......
Then raise a trchnical support ticket to ask to be un-banned on ED , I find it funny

How is it supposed to be factual? ED forum is still the first place to go when one needs to learn how things work in specific aircraft, how to deal with all dreaded tech issues of the damned sim; and the first place to look for mods & addons (LOF being the only exception with its collection of Tom's skins). SimHQ DCS section is almost dead by comparison. Are all people posting the above not having "anything worth saying"?

Not a modder myself, but whenever anyone @ ED forum asks about something I know, I answer and given my rep points, I guess for many folks what I say it actually worth something. Never been banned, because I simply avoid inconvenient topics (yep, my very first post over there, comprising modest opinion about constant Belsimtek delays, got me a few instant warning points right at my face :D). When I want to read some heated debates about these, I come here.

I agree SimHQ is the only place where ED mudslinging contest (sometimes justified, sometimes not) is allowed, and rightfully so, but I find it puzzling/naive why some think the same rule should apply to ED forum. Any software company forum mods will use banhammer for silencing negative PR posters and that's not "hitler'ism", but rather doing their job. Their forum, their money - their rules and policy. Applies to all PC game devs or publishers. What do You expect? If one wants more open debate, one has to go to non-dev places like over here.

The only thing that ain't right is banning over there for things said over here, IF that was really the case.

Yep ............ but the point is .....

If you say something that ED does not like on another forum, so not ED forums they will ban you on ED forums

see ED rules here
http://forums.eagle.ru/rules.php#en

1.13 Users using other public forums to spread damaging and false information regarding DCS and Eagle Dynamics will forfeit thier posting rights here.

Technically no one should be banned via this rule , as the retards cannot even spell their correctly

That rule is exactly why I do all my complaining under another account name. There's pages of it, pages I tell you! And they don't know it's me. Gives me a hearty chuckle, it does.

I really hope this triggers a wild goose chase, because it's not true at all.

That warrants 1.13 right there. Instant 4 week ban



No thats kim jong il'ism



Entirely the case, Should I post up my "support ticket" and the response, then you will believe that to be the case. Seeing as 1.3 rule Administrative actions against forum members are not subject to public discussion, is only in context to discussion on the ED forums, no clause states public administrator action discussion at other forums. No doubt an ED moderator or snitch will interpret it as falling under 1.13 none the less.

More proof in the pudding

http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?p=2735675#post2735675

Yet another paid DLC campaign announcement.

Special mention to the pre 1.5 release screen shots......Author is right, It is a museum relic, even the caucus being a museum relic.

Every tom dick and harry are slapping together half baked campaigns to earn themselves the "3rd party dev" or ED Associate title and score a few green squares in the process.

Both jets have been out for some time now, so long that it's taken a user to slap together a campaign and boast that it will be available in the DCS store.

Most noteworthy, is now ED are supporting paid mods.

So now we have paid campaigns and paid mods are the new focus

Note the update from the producer

http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=164334

particularly this line..

I usually try to avoid pointless discussions but I read some of the latest comments and I'm puzzled.

ED makes war simulations. While non of their products is perfect, we're talking about military grade stuff.
(Source: I work for Military Airforce Training Sims and what I see at work it's often times not as good as DCS, in various departments.)

These products allow normal people to run on a home pc, very realistic simulations, with a very nice graphics and supporting the widest range of Hardware.

Admittedly the military nature of these simulations make for a somewhat dry experience, in absentia of a dynamic campaign generator- putting in the hands of the users a very powerful editor that allow very fine control of the Synthetic Environment.

Whatever is not there is allegedly in development- giving users a good prospect for the next years to come that more and more stuff will be available, and what's there is receiving updates.

I've seen many players complaining about the lack of stuff to do- and this alone baffles me a bit.
I agree wholeheartedly that a Dynamic Campaign editor would be a good idea, no matter the level of implementation (but of course the better it is, the better the results); but on the other hands lots of users are creating good free stuff, from scripts, to liveries to ... well everything.

Some of these products also allows a high degree of control- so they can be tailored or simplified with the given editor.

Now- the pay-for campaigns released so far have been cheap (around the price of a ticket for the movies) offering a much better ratio of "hours of game to currency unit".

I've actually read several reviews that shine a good light on these.

How is allowing users to make more stuff to do for players to enjoy a bad thing?

The risk is buying a wrong/poor product?

Well, isn't it the history of videogames since the dawn of time?
Can't we see that maybe there's also good stuff beside obvious less than stellar?

In a nutshell, why so negative?

*sigh* Please, let's just try to avoid hyperboles and let's try to have a simple, productive, constructive discussion.

Please?

Over.

Yeah after all they are there to make money for their investors and keep us happy with new available products...all in all they are doing a good job of it in IMHO

What investors?

Ok, so Winfield's gripe is about paying for campaigns/DLCs? Or that ED supports it?
Either way, why would you condemn someone for spending their time on something and asking for money for it? You have the power to say yes or no, when buying it or not.

What have you done to better the sim or the community following it? And "paying my money for X product" doesn't count. We've all done it, knowing the risks.

I do agree, in that I'm not happy with the progress of things, but I'm powerless to change that. So I shrug and move on and wait.

You must just love working for free

Please point out where this is said to be pay for mod?

EDIT:- Apologies, I didn't note the DLC bit, this does suggest it is payware.

Nate

I think that a person that single handedly improve the textures of the WHOLE map deserves money.
I'd pay for that, see no evil in it.

And, as they're just textures, you're free to NOT buy it but continue to play online with others who have and suffer no issues, just like plane skins.

I don't know if I'd bother to buy something like that or not, honestly, but I see no reason to demand it free.



The Jedi Master

The ground polygons of the Caucasus map are starting to annoy me, especially after tasting the Nevada.
I don't believe I'd think twice before buying something that finally improves it a bit- but actually I'd have to notice the improvements in a direct Screenshots comparison.

I'm curious, now that we talk about payware, on that Ship-side DLC incoming... Any news on that?

@ Winfield, Thanks for the advertisement!

Now, moving on ... If you don't like my campaign, the premise of it, or what it stands for, then don't purchase it. But I believe that there are some out there who would be interested in this, and I made this for them. And I couldn't be happier with the positive feedback, and excitement from the community, that I've seen so far.

Also, ED / DCS did not announce it. I did. Consider it coincidence that my announcement comes after other DLC campaigns have been announced, and it also was announced during the height of this particular thread. Would have I liked to have been the first DLC to be announced? Well yes, of course, but as you've pointed out in your post, those "pre 1.5 release screen shots" allude to the fact that I've been working on this for quite a long time.
This is not ED's work, nor is this Belsimtek's work. This is my work. A middle aged (still trying to fool myself in thinking i'm not quite there yet), married home-owner, with a kid on the way, who has a full-time job. I've spent countless hours of my free time getting this campaign together, and making it something special.
To say that this is a "half baked" product after spending 25 seconds reading through my post ... is a rather ambitious statement. Should I, or anyone else who's tried to add to the library of DCS, apologize to you personally for not spending our efforts working on a project that doesn't directly coincide with your wants in DCS?

I really enjoy flying the Mig-15 and the F-86. I think they are fantastically well modeled and that Belsimtek did an outstanding job with them. When these planes hit the DCS market, I had always wanted to see more single player options for them. I had to face the fact that my Multiplayer Online flying with these two planes resulted in a whole lot of kills racked up for the other players on my behalf. I regularly ended up as a smoking hole in the ground So when it came to the single player environment, I decided that I wanted to do something about it. I didn't want to wait around for something that might not happen for months to come.
That may be a reason why so many 3rd party developers are out there. The amount of time it would take one group (ED) to make all the platforms that are available is just not possible. There's simply not enough time in the days/weeks/months to work all these possibilities.

I think ED has been doing a great job with the resources they have. They have an amazing product, and they're doing some fantastic work to improve and expand it. And I think it's a testament to how good of a product they have that 3rd party developers have spent a lot of their time and effort adding their own niche to the DCS world and expanding it that much more.

Not if it means having to create patches, game updates and moves resources away from all the UNFINISHED content that some of us have already paid for.

There isn't a problem with people creating content/campaigns for DCS World at all, however and as the thread subject suggests its a concern if ED move their focus away from the continued development of the world in general to focusing on the creation and/or suppport of campaigns simply because its a quick profit.

I think this is 4 campaigns in 3 months now......what news or progress have we seen for DCSWorld (not 3rd party modules) in the same timeframe other than 'progress continues'? We still haven't even got working missions in v2.0 yet but ED are happy to feed us payware campaigns that will only ever function in one of their current branches........until the point they need to put additional resources into making all these new campaigns compatible with 2.5.

Dude, during this time that they've been releasing new campaigns, they've also been updating the game more often than they have in, like, the previous two years combined. There is also no god damn way they haven't developed a pipeline for merging these new campaigns in. So while it might have taken some resources away from other aspects when they introduced support for this way back, saying new campaigns take any real resources away from FMs or ASMs or other features now is a very tenuous argument.

Rather than a new focus, it's just more stuff to get money from.

You are right!...but I guess THEN the workers involved both employees and third party, could be considered as the investors of their time and talents

New textures will NOT change the meshes on the existing Black Sea map, so temper those expectations.

You can paint your 1984 Mercedes the same paint color as a 2016 Mercedes but it's not going to have the lines of a 2016 Mercedes.




The Jedi Master