DCS: Ascending Trailer - Easter Eggs, New F-5E | Where is Dynamic Campaign? AI Improvements?

[@enyakk]

Somewhat surprised to hear a new tone on this channel. I don't think I have heard you express your DCS gripes this clearly before. I think what you say is entirely fair too.

[@vimfuego8827]

The F-5 is VERY important, that's why it's getting a lot of love.

[@Jorendo]

I love the F-5E Tiger II. I tried DCS before, many times. I had the F18 module, Flaming Cliffs set, F14, Different helicopters among them the Huey. Yet I could never get into it. It was too hard for me to learn those planes and helicopters. I worked irregular hours and days so I never had steady amount of time to devote to it. So with the years I would install DCS, would dabble with it, determined to learn the planes. Could fly the F18, just didn't understand the systems. Would not boot up DCS for a while again cause of work and feeling to exhausted after to learn those machines. Then I found some videos and they suggested the F-5E for beginners. I wanted too but the price was a bit high to just see if I would like it now, but a friend informed me about the trial. Activated it, began to do the tutorials, and bought the F-5E a day later as I was flying around understanding most of the mechanics. It felt great to finally understand a plane in DCS. Now a year later I invested in a proper joystick setup, no more cheap plastic, but full metal with so many buttons! Got myself a Tobii eyetracker (though only using the headtracking function) and learning the F18 proper now and actually understanding what I'm doing this time around while enjoying it every bit, all thanks to the F-5E. It truly is a beginner friendly plane and a great way to get introduced to DCS.

[@vladimirsmolensk5913]

For those who dont understand. Falcon BMS technically had one 1 module with horrid graphics, but it remained since 1998. Because of the immersion and gameplay it offers.

[@nlmda101]

I hope it will get attention it deserves with 4.38 release (any news on that?)

[@FirstDagger]

Gameplay > Graphics

[@vimfuego8827]

@@nlmda101 No

[@krostouin]

I agree with you. Been waiting for 20 years after this old engine. In 2004 many were already asking for a dynamic campaign. 😅 The game improves... just way slower than our expectations. Helmet was teased 2 years ago ? It should arrive within 2025 😁 New soldier animation has been teased in the previous video from ED, autumn sales. At 00:20 So.. soon for Xmas ^^ I understand the need for money driving new modules, but maybe ED could ask its community for found raising ? Like we need x amount of money to complete AI + ATC

[@Zolbat]

What if they over-/underestimate the amount of funds that are needed? Development of AI isn't a cake recipe. It's a difficult process with many unknowns. And what if they make the perfect AI but it kills performance? Also things take time. People already are bickering about how long everything takes, imagine they give money for a specific feature, they'd be up in arms 2 weeks later "WhY iSnT tHiS fInIsHeD? We PaId FoR iT!!!"

[@columbar5518]

I looked at the ED store and there are currently 8 modules in early access that ED needs to finish... I think they simply don't have much money to develop the DCS world. And it's a vicious circle: I need money - I release a work in progress module - I need to finish it - but I already got paid - I need money to finish it - I release another work in progress module... and the more I get bogged down in this, the worse the situation gets... Thinking like that, I'd welcome a dynamic campaign as additional DLC. As long as it's already there. Totally agree with your opinion on the AI. What really bothers me personally is that it can see through clouds.

[@thomb629]

Remember that the new fog isn't just visual, it also affects AI line of sight. So it is in fact an AI feature too. They probably have other AI improvements in the pipeline. The problem in all software development is that features tend to take much longer to develop than expected. One often runs into big obstacles that you aren't aware of until the work progresses and you have working prototypes. Maybe you've got some superb AI working, but it takes up way to much CPU to be releasable for example. And sometimes it makes technical sense to improve one part of the system before another, regardless of what players would like to see first. All this causes plans and priorities to change over time, which makes it problematic to talk too much about them before they are almost done. Personally I look at the glass half full, and choose to believe there's a lot in the pipeline that we don't know about yet, and that there are good reasons why some things take a long time and why they are quiet on some topics.

[@CommandT]

I share your view partly. But partly I don’t. There’s basic core features which could have been done years ago which aren’t that complex and wouldn’t take years to implement - just comparing to other sims like BMS, IL2 etc. It’s clear with passage of time that those things just haven’t been prioritised. I get that good quality things take time, but how much time is reasonable? 2 years? 4 years? 10 years? I can’t say I haven’t been patient. I am still very much a glass half full on DCS but I had to make a point that waiting years for some very basic core improvements whilst we are getting bombarded by new early access models is showing a lack of attention to core issues of the sim that have been holding it back for many years.

[@keithmitchell6240]

I do feel like ED has their to do list in the wrong order.

[@MaverickM1]

@@CommandT they are re-writing the whole core stuff from zero (started with mt and they are still working on it (vulkan api) for free, juist saying...because the core game is FREE. Nobody fn mention it but they have zero dollars from the core module but it takes zillions of man hour to maintain and modernize. It is really easy to talk like this but being a game dev I learned what is the difference between being a player and talking about a new feature and being a dev and implementing it (without breaking other 10 features in the game easy peasy). For a free software dcs core is the best in the world. The unlucky issue that they kept it free, they only income are the modules. And so everyone could understand why they releasing new modules before finishing others. I have zero problems with that, others complaining all the time for nothing. It is what it is. If not so, they have another solution, making it subscription based. Now we all know this current method is the better for sure. In a world where stupid kids are paying 20usd for an early unlock of a different camouflage in a FPS shaite, I will never understand why a big part of DCS community complaining on literally everything. Idk if they even play the game... Coz I do and I am really very satisfied with the VR improvements of the last 1-1.5 years.

[@nlmda101]

@@MaverickM1 But what approach wins in the end? Keeping it "free" for no reason (outdated Crimea + Su-39) + sell newcomers shiny "in-progress" modules? Or starting with basics - multiplayer and dynamic immersion, that will people busy + coming for more? I believe F-5II update (3d + ac programmers) is a great move, along with semi-updated FC. Could be priced better or be part of new "free" package - Marianas map + F-5. But first (next) 3DFx team should work on performance issues of new maps (have you tried to walk with your chute in forests of Marianas?)). Maybe Vulcan will save us? DC, FM, 3D and 3DFx devs are all different teams, but management / HR team should have invested in DC team for sure.

[@peterceric3170]

I very much agree with you. All of these visual improvements, new maps and modules are worthless if the player cant use them in a way that makes sense. Any mission that is more than taking of from one airfield striking a target that doesnt have any significance at all and landing again just takes too much time. I have spend so much time in the mission editor, Its insane. I think the most pressing issues for DCS right now are AI and then dynamic campaign. As you said flying with wingmen or other AI flights is really bad most of the time. The only time you dont have to babysit your wingmen is in a solo flight. Only once the player really can get the feeling that you are not alone in the air and actually have wingmen and other flights around you that have goals just like the player we can move on to really use the capabilites of our planes. Only then you can learn to love the mission and not just sit around in your cockpit. And only then you can start to think about doing that in a large campaign. We have jets with cool capabilities but no way to use them with real tactics without tremendous effort.If we get that we can use these tactics on an operational level. And then we can really have any kind of strategic goals. i.e. a dynamic campaign ED needs to Build the experience around the players perspective for a good campaign. I really hope we get that with the dynamic campaign. Its needed.

[@sloppydog4831]

I agree with you. DCS players want a deeper experience, not a broader one.

[@chikokishi7030]

i would argue that updating old modules is at least as important as new content or fixing any other module

[@sloppydog4831]

Oh, boy. I saw your comment in the ED's video and now you made the fastest responde video I've ever seen. Well, the problem with DCS right now is that it is a big confidence crisis between ED and its customers. The constant stream of promises and no deliveries, surprise and totally unexpected announcements like the last maps and the paid patch for the F-5, while maintaining radio silence on long announced features...it's getting tiresome. ED always use this "hype and drop" tactic: they hype up DCS with newsletters, a beautiful cinematic, a new feature, only to drop an entirely unrelated new pre-order for a new module, or drop a new sale. And once they've got people's money, they drop the development of announced new feature. It's been three years since the announcement of the WWII Marianas map and the SC briefing room. In your comment you pointed out other features promised in the long gone year of 2016. It is making people wary of buying anything new. I don't trust ED anymore. I've read the white paper on the fog, but I don't trust that all the new fog features will be ready at launch. The same with the F-5 paid patch, some features are in the "coming soon" phase. These kind of things are trust busters. So, I agree with you, some things in the trailer are just facade, are there just to create hype. Sorry, but I don't fall for it anymore. I love DCS, love playing it, but I'm starting to get in the apathy phase. I've vented my hate at ED, now I'm just apathetic to their announcements.

[@bird.9346]

"totally unexpected announcements like the last maps" That is simply false. They were both known well ahead of time , and the F-5 overhaul was hinted at. I agree with many criticisms, but if you actually look at the newsletters, changelogs, and announcements that certain narrative people like to spin of surprise launches and ignorance for core additions doesn't really exist. Here's the fog working in practice: kzbin.info/www/bejne/a5jMd32ei7Nll68

[@33vortex]

Yeah I agree. As someone who bought the F-16CM module before it entered early access, the progress on it (as with most other modules) moves at glacial speeds. The Mosquito is also not updated at all since a few years back. Having played DCS on competitive level in SATAL, I now find myself bored because of the state of the game. At this point I'm only impressed by what they actually deliver, promises doesn't affect me whatsoever. I think the only thing that could actually impress the community at this point would be if they delivered something without announcing it first. Wait, scratch that... actually not, they need to deliver everything that they have promised us first or else it would just piss us off. 😂

[@CommandT]

Yeah I feel ya! Similar thoughts here 😕

[@sloppydog4831]

Unfortunately, ED uses hype and drop tactics extensively. They announce a bug fix like it is the greatest thing ever, then get people hyped up, to just drop a new sale or pre-order right after it. Then, they drop the development for said bug fix. It is getting tiresome, and it is creating apathy towards ED.

[@hhubert1088]

I often participate in huge DCS multiplayer missions, and they are honestly a blast. However, the AI thing is so true and so damn annoying. As an example, we often resort to forcing the fuel tanks to stay on the MiG-19P's to avoid them becoming UFO's. While attacking ground targets, you have to be super careful not to get shot by technicals sincd they can aim better than the Shilkas etc etc.

[@littleponygirl666]

No gameplay, that's exactly THE problem with DCS. I pretty much play DCS only online which means there's even less gameplay. Just the same pointless sandbox on different maps. So why should I get any more maps then?

[@CommandT]

Many of us wonder the same thing

[@nlmda101]

@@CommandT but, many of you are smart and experienced enough to, probably even answer to other - map builders don''t block or take resources from dynamic-campaign developers, they actually bring money to hire some

[@WarWithIn]

They should fix DCS first, I feel I bought a lot of plans and maps for nothing.

[@PeypaMikko-1842]

I have finished watching your response video. I do agree with your point about the AI. I got tired of AI planes doing some strange near-stall maneuvers without falling down. At this point, I am just "accepting" what ED throw at us, as long as they are still alive.

[@CommandT]

Ha, yeah I guess the world is still far better with the current DCS than without!

[@PeypaMikko-1842]

Wow, a video reaction, faster than an SR-71. The refreshed F-5 is very good news. Still, we will be waiting for refreshed L-39 and refreshed YaK-52 for... more than 2 weeks... or never.

[@virgo47]

L-39 refresh would be fine, as they obviously don't care about bugs introduced into it, even a year ago with 2.9 release. So I guess refresh is our only hope. But then... Yak-52 doesn't need refresh - it needs finishing at last! It's not even half way from EA to final... So never seems more likely for that one. What a shame.

[@PeypaMikko-1842]

@@virgo47 Yeah, I think I saw some of your posts in DCS forums. These planes have old and well known bugs that have been plaguing them... for years...

[@Dorimeme187]

inb4 F-86, MiG-15 & MiG-21

[@fl398motorsports3]

As someone who does not play single player, I cannot comment on the “gameplay”…. I play multiplayer in a virtual squadron…. this sim is amazing if you make it amazing.

[@bronco5334]

Oh, that's nice. Who plays OPFOR for you? Because if you're fighting against AI aircraft, SAMs, or ground units, they are absolutely *not* amazing. They're dumb as a box of rocks, use ridiculous tactics, fly with nonsense flight models, see through clouds and instantly are aware of every player's location, and will snipe a 450 knot fighter aircraft at 2km through clouds and fog with a shoulder-fired rifle. Unless your virtual squadron has people roleplaying every enemy unit, you're still hamstrung by ED's awful AI.

[@fl398motorsports3]

@ a lot you can do with people playing as Opfor and a game master using Olympus.

[@bronco5334]

@@fl398motorsports3 Olympus can help a little with terrible AI tactics as regards setting up an engagement, but it cannot fix the fundamental problems with the AI flight models or the AI spotting and accuracy problems. And we shouldn't *have* to join a squadron and then put players on "make up for ED's crap AI" duty. If you have to jump through those kind of hoops to make the game have acceptable content, the reality is that the game *DOESN'T* have acceptable content. The AI should just suck less.

[@Skipper441]

For example, I completely stopped flying online because it is extremely monotonous and the main thing is that you don’t see any progress in terms of strategy. You carry out some mission and destroy something there, and then what? This is more like some kind of training missions than a full-scale war with limited resources where you and your plane are only a small part of the entire theater of operations.

[@OrionRox]

I think that's the F5E for the Flaming Cliffs, not full fidelity module like F-5E tiger II. And I fully agree with you on the DCS core update, at the moment the more modules they create the more early access they will create as well. I understand they need to make money by selling new modules, but if core update is slow and new modules will stay in early access for years, this will hurt DCS community in the long run. ED products that still in early access: CH-47F: Early access. AH-64D: Early access. F-16C: Early access. Supercarrier: Early access. Mosquito FB VI: Early access. Mi-24P: Early access. Yak-52: Early access. WWII Assets Pack: Early access. Southwest Afghanistan Map: Early access. Afghanistran Map: Early access.

[@slavic8430]

The dynamic campaign is considered by many to be the magic bullet. I personally believe that the expectations here are far, far too high and reality will badly kick in after the implementation of DCSDC. The dynamic campaign will not turn DCS into a new game content wise, because it will not change the game content at all. A runway takeoff will remain a runway takeoff, a cat-launch, a cat-launch, a CCIP drop a CCIP drop, an A2A fight an A2A fight. If you are already bored doing this because you already did it thousands of times before, what shall DCSDC do againgst it? Sure, DCS has many problems that cause frustration. In my opinion, however, the main problem with player motivation is the repetitive nature if the content of the game. You will automatically "burn out" over time and lose interest in the game. I would consider this a normal process. Take-off - flight - use of weapons - landing (best case scenario here 😂). If you're already bored of starting up and taking off an airplane on the ground, flying to a target for x amount of time and using ammunition y there and landing again because you've done it over and over again, not much will change for you just because you're doing the same actions as part of a dynamic campaign instead of a well-scripted mission. Even new maps or modules won't change much. What good are four different modules in which you laser with the TPOD GBU-12? The action itself will always be (nearly) the same. The analogy I like to use here is the Hornet's A/G radar. Much desired by players when it wasn't implemented and now? Ask around and see who can even use it properly today. Way too much hype in my opinion.

[@flightsimstuff5417]

Agreed. I used to be a Give Me a Dynamic Campaign type. Not so much anymore. These things are hard, REALLY hard to do. What I'd like to see is better tools (API), for two reasons: 1) you release the 'community' to create these things, thus, 2) ED saves time and money so they can work on the inner workings and hidden movements (the base code such as efficiency, and such). A lot of people _want_ things 'in there' but approach it like a game. That's fine. In the end it is a game (you don't make a living off of it; don't die, etc). For example: I play golf. The people I play with spend a LOT of money on their golf _game_. Me too but I prefer to master the 'technique'. Because they want to get better at it. It's hard. But in the end it's still a game. I often think that if you gave 'them' a fully fleshed out real multi-million dollar sim from Lockheed Martin (or whomever) they would still get bored. IMHO DCS is about you, the operator's, attitude - if you approach it as if you are NOT the center of the 'universe' - and given a world teeming with 'life' (the real issue I think); a mission to accomplish, while flying correctly (as much as you know how) you might feel you did something when you shut down the motor... ie; I have a semi-dynamic (semi cos DCS won't, out of the box, let me do persistence) campaign engine cooking in the oven that allows me to enter a bit more lively world; I'm often surprised by something. Be it a different plane that taxi's by me or a pop-up tasking I wasn't expecting - and I was the one that coded it!. Kinda neat. Not scripted, not empty. Covers multiple aircraft, time frames, and maps. It has just taken ~3 YEARS! to build it all. The "You make your own fun" = 'you HAVE TO make your own fun". ED's focus seems more about visuals. I like eye candy too, but after some point I don't care about seeing my reflection in a mirror, really, for instance. My little world is, IMHO, 'authentic', which can be boring to someone that approaches it like a game. As the good Mr. @CommandT points out the wingman AI are, errr not great (I can get them to actually hit the briefed target, when I want them to, but nothing dynamic). I include a wingman because as he says: in an authentic combat world you don't go solo. I've asked ED (via the forum, a couple of times) about giving 'us' an API that would provide a version of what is already illustrated (in code, the math) for directing my Bot wingman. Crickets. "Graphics Sell Games" - has always been so and will always be so [to the majority]. In the end this is such a niche, within a niche, that I'm grateful for what I do have. I just want tools to do more, even if I have to do it myself (or someone who knows how to can). Nice talk, take care

[@CommandT]

Yeah… Sorry, I disagree with you massively. Thankfully with the amount of modules and verity of mission profiles available, getting bored from the action is not a thing for me at all. But being able to fly all those missions in a realistic fashion without immersion breaking things happening all the time very much is an issue. I strongly believe a good mission generator or campaign will be able to improve the DCS experience ten fold.

[@LuisFelipy]

The fact that this time there's no Razbam modules on this videos makes me think that this really the end.

[@CommandT]

It’s been the end a while back. Razbam is long gone. Sad 😞

[@nlmda101]

They did not show full feet, but makes sense.

[@fanki1730]

i completely agree at 8:15👍

[@Mark_Point]

Newsletter covered all the F5 details 😂

[@ls6b66]

Ok, I'll be "that guy". I have to disagree with your final assessment, but that's because I'm not a gamer - I'm an old pilot who likes to fly a good simulator - and DCS is that for me. Funny, it's called "Digital Combat Simulator"... And while some of the modules have questionable FMs and sketchy graphics (F-86 looking at you), most are pretty good; and with the right hardware make for a lot of fun flying (if not gaming - but that is a different issue). This from someone who has been a civilian and military pilot/navigator and an industry flight simulator test engineer for a looooong time. By the way, I think you missed two other easter eggs: the village at :45? Could be Normandy, but looks more like Germany to me (churches in particular). And the new dorsal (VHF?) "sharkfin" antenna on some of the F-5Es (present at 1:52, missing at 2:04) that may be a configuration option? I'm pretty sure that was at least a Swiss mod so the F-5s could talk to civilian aircraft - so not a baseline F-5E-3 configuration. Anyway, I hope ED addresses your gaming issues - but at least for me - DCS just keeps on getting better!

[@CommandT]

The missing core improvements I mentioned are exactly what makes it more of a sim than a game. Bad AI - game, good AI - sim. I love DCS and will continue flying in it irrespective of whether some major flaws get addressed or not. It’s still a great way to spend time when not flying real aircraft 🙂 Interesting re sharkfin antenna. Didn’t know the Swiss F-5s have those 👍

[@ls6b66]

@@CommandT We both really want the same thing; I care less about gaming features (Dynamic campaign, etc) and more about FM, airframe limits, systems, etc. I guess I just get cranky about all the emphasis on DCS: the GAME vs DCS: the simulator - probably because I was a professional simulator engineer! Totally agree about a great way to fly when not flying the real thing (i wish!) - I use the P-51 to keep my hand in on flying taildraggers in the winter. And it's not only the Swiss - I think several other countries have the VHF mod (makes sense for a smaller AF where VHF is still pretty common, and essential for air policing). Good vid, but the way - I really enjoyed it! Cheers

[@wiwa23]

Very exemplary for your post was the inclusion of the visual blast fragmentation that ED implemented the past year. For years and years (almost two decades!) this Digital COMBAT Simulator has had a very weak blast fragmentation effect. I'm not talking about the visual aspect but the actual ability to damage things when you drop a 2000 pounder two feet next to a truck and damage it...still not the case. The community clearly shows that they want it changed and what do we get after all those years... Only the visual aspect of it. This was so typical. These visual apsects keeps getting priority. Look, it's not about money. I want to pay more for all of this, I really do. I really understand ED needs money. Reviewing of ED's business is needed in my opinion. Am I to naive? I mean, I'm willing to pay a good amount for a base game, willing to pay at least double the price of a good module like the F18 on top of the base game as long as it's not in early acces for years and years with no entitlement to ask for a quicker finished product that works in a more polished and immersive environment.

[@AndrewH2791]

I just roll my eyes when dynamic campaign is mentioned by ED that ain't happening for many many years if at all, I dont think they have the chops to do it at all tbh.

[@Skipper441]

I agree with every word. DCS is just a museum where you can get on any plane and fly, bomb something once and forget about this module.

[@0Ignition0]

I hope the dynamic campaign don't turn to be another Combined Arms, that module was forgotten since release and the price was even increased.

[@timothymorgan8254]

I agree with everything you said

[@JoJo-vm8vk]

AI fighters don't bleed speed with AoA ! So you can't practice BFM. Wingmen do flat tranmation to stay in place, ruining the immersion.

[@virgo47]

I'd love to see many other things more than a new fog and F-5E revamp - but I take those as I definitely like F-5 a lot - and I don't like the existing fog at all, it's just atrocious. So those are two good improvements. But yeah... give me better ATC and I'll wait for fog a bit longer, hands down. Ground AI is terrible, true. And many other things... I have no idea what resources ED has, but they can't develop some things for years which makes me wonder whether they have the priorities wrong (milking on modules) or just can't deliver some things because the game is already so old and broken. I just don't know. But all these things aside... I like new fog. 🙂I've flown some training missions in fog and it was terrible. So if they can't get me anything else, at least, give me FOG!

[@triggerdcs]

Hello there Command T, just like you i have been enjoying DCS for a very long time, i started playing in 2019 and back then they promised a dynamic campaing for 2022. Its 2024 and its no where to be seen. I get that things take time, especially in a sim and we have to be patient. And i have been patient. But after 5 years, almost 6 now, i'm starting to get frustrated to see that the core of the game isn't being prioritized. AI, FLIR, IR, IR missiles, countermeasures, MP Desync... And the bugs.. every semester they break the F/A-18 / F-16 radar and almost every 1,5 year there is a radar rework that makes the radar works like crap or buff it to eye of sauron levels. We are on the 4th rework already. Anyways, idc if they sell new products, i don't really mind that many modules are in EA, but come on, work on the core, keep the modules bug free... i don't think that is asking too much.

[@SQUID_2259]

While there are a great many of things that we'd like to see in DCS, good things come to those who wait.. When you're not rich, waiting is easy because you know the value in appreciating the things you have instead of believing you should always have something new. All of the items mentioned, the ones we "should have" where else are they accurately being demonstrated? BMS?...Okay, Dynamic Campaign.. It's antiquated and it barely, if at all, qualifies as dynamic, especially in this day and age. MSFS? Ha! that game is getting roasted right now in its new release state. The point is.. no one else is even close to challenging what ED has given us right now for a combat sim. Maybe in the future but for now you'll just have to "wait" and see... so no point to inciting a riot because we'll all still be here to play later.

[@SolarTS0]

well said!

[@rafaelcarvalho7727]

We need some good modder to do the Brazilian Air Force F5-M, with the cockpit with 3 MDFs, laser guided bombs (Brazil/Israel made Lizard 2 laser guiding kit) and BVR capabiities (Meteor). Kinda like the SUFA Mod for the F-16 Viper module

[@CommandT]

That would be super cool 👌

[@ShtrikeBirb]

I completely agree!

[@RyuKimGaming]

When ATC improvements?

[@jaeloo]

ATC upgrade 9'99

[@Hanfkrokette]

Ima call it here,ED is gonna wait for AI to be implemented to create the dynamic campaign,it would save them a lot of time and money with something thats basicly free lol.i`ve been wondering why no one has implemented actual AI with an API to create or at least interact with DCS´s core engine.Things hopefully change either way soon. 2weeks TM

[@holkemann]

They have comfirmed it's only a graphical update, same module so same bugfixes etc.

[@jep1103]

Totally agree

[@tbe0116]

The incentives for ED are off. They need a subscription product so they can get off the constant new module cycle and focus on more core needs.

[@BlueSkiesVinny]

Good luck selling a subscription to players who have already invested years and hundreds/thousands of dollars into their products. Would be an absolute disaster. Thankfully it'll never happen.

[@keithmitchell6240]

If it gets ED to focus on core development I’ll sign up for a subscription no problem.

[@a_romon_noodle_8128]

Also need better ground graphics.

[@peterpaul5820]

And bigger maps

[@somedude8877]

The AI and ATC is worse than BMS was in 1998. They are in way worse shape than the graphics.

[@colinkelly990]

ED is a business, they have to make money. Unless they go subscription based selling modules, terrains, campaigns is the only way to keep the lights on. I assume they are working on the core but just don’t put as many resources toward it or the other issues. Like it or not that’s just the way it is.

[@DoradoFever]

Would like rain to not hit an aircraft in a hangar/structure and improve logic of aircraft like the AV-8B N/A (understand it being Razbam) taxiing in weather with the canopy open.

[@andrewpaull7485]

While I agree its like watching paint dry at times I don't think redoing old modules is affecting dynamic campaign progress at this stage. I guess you could argue they could fire some of the plane moddlers and hire some extra people to work on campaign in their place, but im assuming like the place I work, one field cant always be transferred to work on another. They couldve started work on it a lot earlier obviously, but at same time there been a lot of core features that needed to be fixed in DCS first for campaign to be decent & properly functional which i think is still the case even now. I dont think they are complete idiots to not want to have to most requested freature in as soon as possible. Just a long frustrating wait. Atm personally I prob have about 10yrs of standalone campaigns still in my library still to get to which id probably prefer to a dynamic one anyway as I find them more immersive. But obviously their locked behind paywall so your point is valid on getting new players in. Same with MAC which seems to have gone silent. Not s perfect company ED by any means, but theyve kept themselves afloat for over 30yrs so not going to say what they done hasnt worked to this point.

[@CommandT]

Yeah it’s a fair point. The fact they are still around is good for all of us!

[@andrewpaull7485]

​@@CommandTtbh 10 yrs ago before 1.5 update if they showed me the state of game now I would have predicted it was from 2030+ anyway lol. Felt even more of a pipe dream some features back then. Just hope that they survive and I'm still around next decade to see all this finally come together! On a side note, once it's release woes get ironed out, will you do some videos on fs2024? I know it's been a long while since a 2020 vid so maybe not. But I would love to hear your impressions on it and some general aviation vids with your knowledge. Things like emergency procedures maybe. You always do great content that differs a bit from what everyone puts out. So far it's been mixed bag with new game for me, I definitely see plenty visual improvements but some areas of the world map the ai generation seems oddly downgraded. Overall tho I think its a nice step forward. Personally Iiking the career focus. Getting an 'A' certification for my private licence was a proud moment haha (also saved a lot of money doing it virtually 😂)

[@BirdstrikeJack]

lets donate them to work only on dcs engine perfecting

[@DCSTED]

I couldn’t agree more with your comments and observations. The state of AI and dynamic campaigns has been my biggest frustration for a couple of years now. The AI wingmen in particular is the single biggest handicap to doing anything realistic in single player dcs. It is completely non functional. The only actual use for taking wingmen these days is a s a substitute for HARM missiles when doing SEAD, as they do an excellent job of exposing themselves and lighting up every SAM site around and getting shot down! All of this has been the single driving factor that’s pushed me more and more to falcon bms lately, where there’s a really good AI and campaign generation and far better immersion. ATC works and AI wingmen feel much more like there is an actual intelligence there. Sure dcs looks very pretty and some of the scenery is really impressive compared to bms but much of the scenery is also lacking down low, with very straight lines and low res. There’s so many unfinished early access projects in dcs right now that it’s very hard to really see where the progression is going. My personal belief is that dcs will be in a lot of trouble when bms 4.38 finally goes live, and releases graphics and visuals to match and probably even better dcs.

[@CommandT]

BMS will match DCS graphics? Hmmmm. Now that I find hard to believe 😅

[@DCSTED]

@CommandT from what I'm seeing and hearing I think it will almost certainly be a considerable step up from dcs actually. A huge amount of work has been going on for this. It's still probably a good few months away but it's going to be very impressive.

[@Mr3Aph]

core game, dynamic campaign? would you pay for it? because maps and modules generate income to ED

[@CommandT]

This is exactly the backwards thinking that’s holding them back. Core improvements and dynamic campaign would attract a huge amount of new players, to whom they could then sell all their products. Core improvements are vital for growing the community and attracting more interest in the sim… because its gameplay. Good gameplay results in more sales.

[@Mr3Aph]

@ Wishful thinking to prove a point. Good gameplay means “War Thunder”, for the masses. DCS is hard to learn, even harder to master. Player base is limited. It is a niche, nobody is leaving or coming back because of the bad or improved ai wingman flight model. The dynamic campaign - maybe some already bored with dcs will come back. I believe they work on it. When it will be ready it will be ready. I would be surprised if it would be free. It is easier and faster to make&sell maps. ED has to pay their bills. If someone is a big fan of F-5 he will pay 10 bucks. People pay for skins and gadgets in other games. by the way … “scripted campaigns”, love the level of details, kneeboards, voiceovers, plot impossible to have it in dynamic environment.

[@N172GB]

I love DCS.

[@somedude8877]

For some reason I still do two ship missions with the AI and there really is nothing to fuck up your immersion like coming into land and watching your wingman float down in front of you, glitching out while you're on final. Improving this can't be rocket science. BMS could do it on a Pentium 3. Are we using some kind of downgraded civilian version of the sim?

[@CommandT]

Exactly my thoughts.

[@user5553_]

AI flights are ridiculous right now u are right. I think ED has not been allocating much resources to the maps. 3rd party creators making. So, ed is selling those and taking their cut. 3rd party takes whatever left. at some point, they gonna have to join all the different maps together and make one big world map. I believe this is their intention. If you take off from incirlik, you will be able to land on anapa. I dont bother about su27 pilot's mask, but I wanna see decent AI flying and moving on the ground. path finding and doing tasks without bugs is more important for me. otherwise, there are a lot of things have to be done for every unit. for me, buying modules is done. I don't need any more modules or maps that I won't fly.

[@MrAden1307]

"Join all maps together and make one big world map" 😆Yeah as if 🙄 do you understand how technically difficult that would be. Don't ED already prove they have issues with making things work. Joining maps 😂 Only maps that are right next to each other. And even then they still can't do it due to legal reasons. Think before you type. Joining ALL MAPS is a crazy statement. How do you Join France to the middle east? Or Nevada to Syria 😆 wow the stupidity is wild

[@midnight7297]

$10 for a "model update". It pisses me off they're defending it saying its taken someone several thousands of hours to reskin/model it.....Well even if its great they prob need to sack the person who's claimed that many hours to do a remodel of something, whether from scratch or based from the original as a start point! There were certainly other things that prioritise several thousand hours of work to improve

[@joejoe2658]

use dark reader

[@suecobandito8954]

C’mon T, quit beating around the bush. Tell us how you really feel. Don’t sugarcoat it like that.

[@RogueSpecterGamingOfficial]

Someone didnt read the newsletter before making this video 🙄

[@Peter-bakker]

Germany and the Netherlands maybe and Belgium

[@peterpaul5820]

Did he said Germany map? 🥳

[@pinkfloyd7572]

It's not reasonable to say there's no excellent gameplay in DCS. There are high-tech planes - best of any sim - excellent maps, and enough in-game bells and whistles to make for some very good gameplay. If the player lacks the imagination to find some fun in all that, that's not the game's fault.

[@CommandT]

Except it’s literally missing the immersive environment to utilise all of those maps and modules. Yes of course there’s fun to be had… otherwise I wouldn’t be playing DCS since its inception in the mid-2000s. But have always had very limited tools to work with. So I disagree with you 100%. I’ve been supporting this sim for almost 20 years.

[@pinkfloyd7572]

@@CommandT If someone gives a kid a great big box of LEGO, and the kid says there's nothing to do with it, don't blame the LEGO. As for immersion, it's what you make of it. DCS is a sandbox sim and it's not going to spoon feed you your fun. You need to put in some imagination and effort.

[@G3R3SkYwAlK3R]

F5E update costs 10 dollars for people who own the module already lol

[@dunbar555]

the F-5 upgrade will cost 9,99

[@CommandT]

Oh that was mentioned somewhere? I missed it!

[@SPATZ33]

@@CommandTyes was mentioned in the newsletter

[@williamleadbetter9686]

Will you get upgraded weapons & avionics? Or just pretty details on on an old plane.

[@sloppydog4831]

@@williamleadbetter9686 Look at the newsletter. They say it is a updated 3d model and new textures, but some feature showcased in the trailer are in the "coming soon" state. Also, they are very vague regarding the bug fixes and avionics improvements. Knowing ED they will probably release the new module with 3D updates, and all other fixes and updates "will be added later". It is a shame, but this F-5 update is a hard pass for me.

[@SPATZ33]

@@williamleadbetter9686 as far as I understood just new visuals - no new features - bugfixes will be same for the old and new version

[@Dorimeme187]

ED NEEDS TO PAY RAZBAM

[@J37W4SH]

No dynamic campaign, no ATC, no data cartridge, no comms ladder gets boring fast

[@J37W4SH]

These things kept me flying Falcon 4 from 1998 to now. Why? Because I never feel like I'm the only one at an Airbase, or that I'm the only one doing a mission that matters. Or that the mission I'm doing doesn't matter because server will restart before I can get another flight in..

[@dunbar555]

you are right about the AI wingmen

[@a_romon_noodle_8128]

Stop buying anything from ED NOW ON, you want his attention then stop giving him your money

[@dawixd2678]

yeah, i dont care about the new maps anymore. all of the servers will still use pg and syria, and imo it's just a little waste of money

[@BenjaminJannedy]

Thats not a F5, its a F20 Tigershark... Look at the flat nose of that thing!

[@CommandT]

It’s an F-5 ;)

[@ricbish]

Dude, really? No good gameplay? I don’t know what you’re playing but I’m having a lot of great fun in DCS. Way too negative in my opinion! ED needs the cash flow so why not redo some old modules like the F5. You need to remember this is a business with people to pay and bills etc.. So they do Everything for money. Pretty simple

[@CommandT]

This is not a good argument. Obviously they need to sell modules, no question, but what they need is MORE USERS - this comes through improving your core mechanics and gameplay. This is why I feel we’ve now gone too far in module making in relation to having the right base to attract more users and for us to actually enjoy these modules without getting frustrated.

[@bearmat6605]

Yeah they ignore the fact that the game has no depth outside of the visuals and fidelity. The business model works for them because people (including myself) pay for these modules. But for me, and a lot of other people, there is very little re-playability (is this a word?). Some of us don't care to play online, or don't have the time to dedicate 100% attention to it; and campaign modules, despite the tremendous effort of the authors, are boring and scripted.

[@Warkip]

@@CommandT exactly, and yeah online can be fun, playing in a virtual squadron as well. but when a new player comes in and there is nothing to do besides going online, which can be really daunting as a new player, or joining a virtual squadron. you are gonna loose a lot of potential new players

[@ryanw1433]

@@CommandTI think more aids or simplifications for the casual gamer are needed, stuff that the serious player can turn off of course. I like to think I’m serious, but realistically I’m away for weeks at a time and forget the details or my bindings are messed up.

[@mcdonnelldouglasf-4ephanto607]

Let me guess, you are new to DCS

[@TOMCATnbr]

I don't know in which world you live, but only 2 planes, 2 helico, 1 map, and people will be happy with that ??!! Are you looking to comments? People want EVERYTHING. If you give them good AI physics, they will cry because there's no map and no module to fly with.... We all want smart AI, and i'm sure ED is working on it, but they can't make money with a new physics or dynamic campaign. They need to sell planes, heli, maps etc to make profit and keep developping those backyard improvement.

[@SimoneSerponi]

I stopped at "...excellent gameplay does not exist in DCS".

[@CommandT]

Well that’s a shame. You obviously wouldn’t know what I meant by that then.

[@andycarmo5203]

I had a little discussion with reflected and Baltic about scripted missions and their effects on DCS. Namely the fact possibly the dynamic campaigns really isn't a priority because third party campaign creators will be pressuring ED not to implement it. If we've got a dynamic campaign where nothing is scripted. You can do anything and still compete a mission and complete or not, you'll progress and see direct dynamic consequences. We won't need, or buy, scripted campaigns anywhere near as much. They went strangely quiet......

[@ambientlightofdarknesss4245]

DCS is sadly stuck in that "war thunder" cycle. Where they just can't afford to make improvments in gameplay or anything that won't instantly make money. As great and as happy new AI will make new players, it won't bring them any new revenue. At least not compared to releasing the Corsair, or the Eurofighter.

[@CommandT]

I’d argue it would - better gameplay will attract more new players to the sim who can then buy all this stuff 🙂

[@ambientlightofdarknesss4245]

@CommandT I'd argue New players are more attracted to shiny new aircraft than new gameplay changes sadly. Especially if it's their favorite. Just take a look at the Phantom. It came out at the height of the Razbam drama. Yet it's sales weren't even affected and people bought it up like hotcakes.

[@pjslon9219]

Love your content as always, but pleeease don't turn into yet another DCS's negative Nora :) I would love GFM AI, save game mid mission, MSFS like detailed mountains (dynamic campaign not so much- tastes differ as you say)... But, lets no lose the forest for the trees: DCS has unbelievable gameplay right now, which is why we've played 1000s of hours there. Always look on the bright side of life tu-tu-tu... (great song) :)

[@andrewdavies3584]

Black screen for me.

[@fanki1730]

We need Dynamic Campaign. Its just too boring

[@Blu0tuth0ninja]

Those mountains are caucus

[@CommandT]

I don’t think so.

[@Badger1-1]

1 map and 2 planes or helos dont generate income...DCS went full capitalism...never go full capitalism

[@randyreal5871]

DCS is the only thing I can play every other game ever made is awful.. Would love to see videos about how much il2 & MSFS suck

[@rickmasseur2008]

Want some cheese with that whine? That's a lot of whining over a nice clip.

[@mattmatt350]

I know dcs is a complicated game but I never understood how some ps5 games could look so good but dcs struggles with graphics outside the cockpit. One thing I can't stand is the anti aliasing in dcs. Even with a relatively high end pc the aliasing almost makes me dizzy in vr. I agree ED should be focusing on the core game rather than new modules and maps