homepage Forums Air Combat & Civil Aviation DCS World A letter from Eagle Dynamics

A few weeks, ops, next a few more years then 3 decades, heck I was 48 when DCS started now at 75 I'm still waiting . I backed the kick starter for WW11, so far I have 4 aircraft, a map, forgot when the kick starter started, but BOS has been around for less time and has delivered a whole lot more.

Being a single player BOS's AI in much better then DCS's WW11 AI and BOS's AI is not that good to begin with. In DCS if I'm not very careful a shot up smoking enemy AI aircraft can out run, out maneuver, out climb me and shot me down , in BOS not so. In December BOS will release the final Kuba map, 2 new planes and a new campaign system for a total of 3 maps to fly on with more to come next year, Where will DCS be??

I believe I will flying a P51, P47 and a P38 in a BOXX campaign long before I will even have a chance in a DCS campaign. Even if DCS where to release the P51 campaign with their new 2.5, with out major AI fixes it will be a no go for me.

That has nothing to do with the AI. The damage model for the AI operated aircraft is the root of that problem.

unfortunately that is indeed what is happening - and thanks to P3D as well.

but for maybe some FC3 skin updates I maybe plan to do in 2018 , I am not interested in 2.5 or any of the add ons or maps anymore.

and for that reason and their attitude , it leaves me with no reason left to continue spending my free time the way I did before with DCS .

it is time to fully move on to P3D and immerse myself in 1c/777.

I'm still holding out for Fighter Ops (NEXT GENERATION IN FLIGHTSIM TECHNOLOGY). How's that coming along (I don't have Area 51 access)?

Also Jet Thunder and Seven-G, should be getting close, right? Right?! I know, I know...two weeks.

Don't laugh, but Seven-G actually posts updates to his website about every 6 months ( or so )!

Amazing that they update this website more often than their own.

Lots of words from Wags, only thing is - I do not trust a single frekking word he says.

Hell yes.
I was witing for a statement to the 1CGS move but thought they'd realize they have nothing to do on the WW2 arena.
In general I hope all ED 3P's think twice before they continue on the DCS path.

My excperience to the letter (I do admit I have not tried BoS AI that much though) and I have so many frustrating hours in DCS editor flying Viggens often ending the late evening with "why the hell am I doing this".

DCS:Viggen is on my backburner (and when a Swede is turning his back on the first detailed swedish fighter ever to be released, something is very bad)


Edit: I see multiple spelling errors in my above posts but I am too tired eating breakfast here so you guys will have to live with them

Don't worry, your English is much better than my Swedish!

7G is South Korean based - they announced a beta a year ago or so after 10 years of development and then no more news, quite frustrating.

I have no doubt that we will see in the coming weeks lots of new releases and even 2.5 finally arriving, maybe even Hormuz very soon as well - fantastic, awesome, cool, incredible and I guess too late for many of us.



one of Jet Thunder's lead developers died and that seems to have been the end of it - a sad story if there ever was one.

Fighter Ops collapsed under the weight of a perhaps too ambitious goal of developing an all new flight sim.

Didn't know that about JT. Really sad on many levels; community lost a passionate dev, and an opportunity to experience some "uncharted territory" in the flight sim world.




Anyway, a very disappointing letter. More of ED committing to nothing while trying to get credit for everything.

That's the biggest difference overall between 777 and ED: For every major update to BOS over the past couple years (and there are many), they have SET, and more often than not, MET goals. The are able to set accurate timelines for delivery, which is one of the key factors separating a professional from an amateur.

Pretty much every paragraph I read, where ED out lines it's excuses for the glacial pace of development, I was thinking: "OK, so why is 777 able to do this so well but you can't?"

ED: "Developing a terrain engine is hard" - 777 seems to be doing great with the Digital Nature engine. Runs well, looks great at all altitudes, and has shown itself to be quite flexible.

ED: "We're a small company" - Yes, and 777 clearly rivals Google for development man-power....

ED: "We have clickable cockpits and PFMs!" - ....for a collection of aircraft and environments best described as an "island of misfit toys" left over from professional contracts and fractured third party devs. A plane with a "lesser" flight model* and non-clickable pit, that I can actually fly and fight with, beats out a plane I can't fly (DCS hornet) or living in a static environment, any day.

ED "We're working on it!" - yes, but 777 is delivering on it.

Sorry, haven't been paying much attention to any other sims lately - what's the "1c/777 recent announcement" mentioned a few posts ago?

As always, wake me up when the slackers at ED finish F/A-18.

https://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topi...enplatte-flying-circus-tank-crew-and-mo/

Exactly the reason why some of us will never bother with 777.

I play BoS and DCS and RoF. I like them all, they're fun.

That is all.

Agreed.

The only thing that separates the ED situation from 777 is the following:

- The WWII stuff is clearly at lot easier to develop.
- ED has to build upon and update older content released long before IL-2 BoS was even released. For example, the KA-50, the dozens of campaigns and other things that have been released along the way.

Looking back on it, the developmental approach ED took was too big for them to chew.

I like the ED concept for DCS World, although I think it would have been best to develop simplified aircraft with shorter development times. Last thing I'd want is the focus to shift to WWII, which I have very little interest in.

And so where is ED's WWII stuff compared to BoS?



And who told ED to take that big of a bite?

I also fail to see how "build upon old content" is in any way a factor.... this isn't like BMS where the old content was done by totally different people under a different company. While you could argue that people who made the old content in DCS may no longer be working for ED, fact still remains that the old content was developed under ED and the new content is being developed under ED. Surely there's some documentation somewhere.... so how is old content in ED's case a factor?

As for the rest of the content of this thread......