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

Nevada isn't a mil project, neither is the L-39. They've also made the P-51, and have now taken it upon themselves to do the WW2 project. And again, if they're after mil contracts, why are they developing the F/A-18C? The USMC isn't gonna buy that, they're not planning to have their Legacy Hornets for more than a few years. Only Finland and Switzerland comes to mind flying them, and they're such small customers that they're unlikely to be willing to spend money on a new simulator.

Holy sh!t!! Who are you and what have you done with the REAL Troll??!??!?

"New theaters in development: Syria, Crimea, and Afghanistan" Hmmmmm. Now we know why the black sea map is taking so long to modernize and the integration to 2.5 is way over due.
We called it.

I don't know, they've always been slow. If any work at all has been done on either of those 3 theaters, I think it's very little, and that they're hoping to bag some lucrative mil contracts that would allow them to hire more manpower to actually put real effort into it. They've never said anything to the DCS community about either of those maps, despite A, having a proven track record of telling the community anything, no matter how far off it is, and B, there's no reason for why those maps would be exclusive to any mil customer and unavailable to the DCS customers.

I mean, if you want mil contracts, it probably looks bad if you can only advertise half the Black Sea region, the NTTR, Normandy and the Straits of Hormuz as available/upcoming terrains.

What? We saw video of it up and running in a professional grade simulator years before it was released to us. The P-51 wasn't meant to be a consumer release. It was a pet project one of the programmers was doing just "for fun". It was only after they saw how nice it turned out they decided to release it. This explains why they would release a prop with no adversary and ill fitting in the rest of the DCS world.

WWII was obviously not ED's idea...it was Luthier/RRG...and now it's been pretty stagnate.

Your statement about Nevada not being a private contract is enough for me to not continue this discussion. It seems your just shooting from the hip at this point. If you want to believe ED's made all these decisions with you the consumer in mind...knock yourself out.

Nevada was a 3rd party project that fell apart, and was rebooted by ED, and then put on hold while a new graphics engine was developed to facilitate the larger object counts,

it was never a "Military" Project.

as stated before, whether or not professional simulator companies licensed early versions of edge and maybe nevada for their use is completely another story, as they would be able to license an early engine, and complete it themselves (ie Avia TS etc).


The P-51 was Developed by E.D. for private use by The Fighter Collection, it was later released as a retail product.

I guess I used the word "military" in one of my responses...but as I said in my original post:



Nevada was used for a private contract before we received it...correct? I know I saw a video of it up and running in a pro-grade simulator
a couple years ago.

I remember having bought a Spitfire, a P-47D and a WWII map a while ago...

I wonder if I will get it before 2020.

Using yourself as an example means nothing. I could give my self as an example and that would lead to nowhere. Why do you count more than me?

If you're like me, and I know I am...



The Jedi Master

So BMS survives because it's old and free and the reasons I have put forward are not valid because they are my reasons? Wow. Maybe I've never been to the BMS forums? Maybe I've never seen/read/talked about how other people fly and why they like BMS? Yes, of course, my reply was based solely on myself; I have no knowledge nor insight from anyone except myself.

So let's try that again.

1. 6DoF pits and TIR support - AF doesn't hold a candle to BMS implementation of this.
2. Theatres - BMS has at least 3 theatres. If "new theatres" aren't a thing, why does DCS only have Black Sea and Nevada?
3. DirectX - if that's really, REALLY important, how is BMS surviving on old DirectX? Why is DCS so bad even with new DirectX? Maybe, just maybe, I dunno, DirectX implementation might not be a factor in how some simmers enjoy their games?

Don`t get me wrong, but I bnever understood that project. There are so many good and modern ww2 scenario based softwares out there. Why not focusing on something we are really missing. A modern fighter simulation with tons of different modules.

Imagine what could have been developped with the money...

my money ... that is why I would like to see it released.

I feel for ya Tom.

Maybe ED should include some paperwork with the WWII stuff so purchasers can list "next of kin" in case they expire from old age while waiting for their purchase to be released. At least your kids could enjoy it.

LMAO. It's hilarious because it's true.
Why were RRG removed from that project? Stacking side by side RRGs and EDs work done on the project. RRG produced more in the one year they were managing the project than ED have produced in the two years they have been managing the project. All I've seen from ED is the finalization of the 109 started by RRG. Oh and some spitfire screenshots. It seems the only thing that's been accomplished in the last year was putting a pilot in the spitfire. Pathetic really. Should have just cancelled it and refunded everybody. Or subcontracted to someone who actually gave a $hit about the customers.

as I wrote - at the rate they are going, we will see them releasing it piecemeal by 2200, I mean, 3030 ooops, 2020.

/ OT mode on /

Ice, have you ever seen anyone on the ED forums who is able to follow a line of discussion?

- Sure, when you're posting how amazing DCS is, and how ED does a great job. In this case anything is admitted, even posting memes and going totally OT is allowed, and welcome.

- When you post a nasty bug, well, you either get moved to the "wishlist" section, or totally ignored into oblivion.

- It then becomes totally impossible for the ED fanboy to follow any discussion if you dare criticise anything done by ED.


I always find amusing how fanboyism works.

Over at the ED forums in a way you get used to it, everything is of the same "color", because anyone with a different opinion is efficiently banned, dangerous heretics and anarchists are immediately dealt with. I have a laugh every time I read a thread, every 3 posts there's a username with that little red cross next to it (meaning banned). Of course you can never tell why he was banned, because the offending posts are removed in a matter of seconds.

Here on the other hand, fanboys spark a very stark contrast with people that can actually enjoy different sims and debate freely on the strengths and weaknesses of each one, and god forbid, even go as far as comparing DCS with BMS!

You know what? I enjoy DCS. What bothers me is what DCS could be but will not be, unless ED got their act together a little more. There is one thing I learnt very quickly in my job, and is the base of pretty much every commercial activity on the planet: listen to your customers and look at what the competition is doing. ED don't do enough of this. They instead opted to cultivate a sort of sect of followers, while shunning everyone else.

And this is why DCS will never be able to take the role that Falcon 4.0 / BMS always had in the combat sim community.
The Falcon community, with all of its drama, has always been a place where you could feel the need and want for progress. More realism, more options, more of everything. No argument is taboo.

The DCS community on the other hand, is generating bitterness, fanboyism and censorship. It's self-limiting. You can't express your opinions freely because there are people at every corner ready to discredit your post or derail the thread. You can't suggest or want something that ED doesn't approve.
You can't freely discuss the fidelity of A-A missiles, because you're exposing a weakness in DCS and ED will not acknowledge the problem.

Blocking discussion = blocking ideas = blocking progress.

/ OT mode off /

excellent post bkthunder

+1 bkthunder

it is our shared experience