Well said sir! I'm in your corner as for Vietnam, I much prefer that era to the more modern, but like you, I understand EDs side. I'm still hoping for a Vietnam map, but not holding my breath. Please keep these positive videos coming.
As ED has pointed out, they are fast approaching a hard stop on the "Modern Combat" side of things which means they have no where forward to go, but there is plenty of room in the past to go. Hence you will see as things start to move into the Pacific WW2 scenarios and up to the Viet Nam era.
@@rwhunt99it would be cool if they finished/debugged their modules instead of coming out with maps no one asked for, which further fragments online stuff. Caucuses could use some love. Everything else should be left up to 3rd party devs since they seem to do a better job anyway.
As a 51 year old sim nerd, I agree with the idea that the Vietnam and Cold War periods have enormous potential for fun (after all one of our favorite activities is dropping unguided iron bombs on targets). I also understand I'm possibly not in the demographics that ED is hoping to sell modules to (I already own most modules apart from some of the WWII ones). I remember a long time ago going online for the first time in a sim called Jane's USAF. It was one of those survey sims that had Vietnam era jets like the F-4 as well as more modern USAF fighters like the F-16 (if you think about it, it is quite similar to what ED does with the planes they put in Flaming Cliffs 2024 to attract new players with planes from Korea to modern times). One of the fun things I remember doing in that old sim was dropping napalm or MK-82s on simulated targets on the Ho Chi Minh Trail along the Vietnamese border. Another thing I did with my squad buddies at the time is I had built missions with modern jets in Vietnam loosely based on a fictional scenario from Tom Clancy's non-fiction book Fighter Wing. Without getting in the details, it provided a fictional storyline where the US Air Force could plausibly deploy F-16s, F-117s, B-1Bs, F-15Cs and F-15Es to Vietnam from Mountain Home AFB. In that sense, I feel a Vietnam map would make quite a bit of sense to either re-create historically accurate scenarios from the sixties and seventies, as well as having a fun "what if" area to put modern jets in. That's why I personally feel ED has everything to gain $$$ by producing a map of Vietnam. They'd certainly get my money. The other rumored map I'd certainly buy without question would be a Fulda Gap European map. Oh, look, I wanted to write a short and concise comment to say "Good job once again Sidekick!" and I got carried away... 🙊
I think 40-55 age group is a significant part of the DCS community. I came from the world before Discord where forums were the means of communication. Places like simHQ and others like it. I have been flying multiplayer since 2001 in the original IL2, and most of the people I flew with got into DCS at some point. Most of us fall under the 40-55 age group.
Under the assumption that this is the internal strategy, this is why I am so appreciative of the third parties that have partnered with ED. They seem very willing, if not enthusiastic about developing the Cold War sim-scape that I’m most interested in.
Take out Heatblur and you’re missing the Viggen and F4, take out RAZBAAM and you’re missing the Mig-21. You basically don’t have Enigmas Cold War server then. You’d be flying A-10As against Su-25s and Hinds against Huey’s.
Thoughtful analysis and commentary, as always. Thanks for being a voice of reason! As a long-time sim nerd myself, I (alas) agree with you completely. This probably means that DCS will be with us for a long time, which is probably on balance, a good thing.
Thank you, I enjoyed that. A very innovative way to explore what has happened and what the path maybe. The summary of the AI findings and your suggested conclusions brings a balance to the extreme ends of this discussion. Your thinking makes a lot of sense. Well done! DCS can be incredibly frustrating then incredibly amazing within the space of a few days. What a world and time we live in. Now if we could only forward and rewind track replays…..
Well said and sounds very reasonable. Really have been enjoying your perspective on the biz aspect, in addition to all your regularly scheduled content!
Great idea, great delivery, great vid. Well done! I'm with you in the Disappointed but Unsurprised camp and agree with all the reasoning outlined...but it is frustrating to see setting after setting half-arsed, when some commitment to the product would deliver an absolutely top-class simming environment.
Very much enjoyed that analysis- thank you Your opinions does make a lot of sense and may explains why Heat blur, rather unexpectedly to me anyway, focused on the Typhoon release not the A6. Interesting though that a lot of the 3rd parties are focused on delivering Cold war platforms. Is this then an ED strategy to demarcate development ? Interesting stuff
DCS 2025 reveal adds further validity to your view that ED is focusing on a younger demographic We will have to rely on 3rd parties for cold war platforms 😊
I truly appreciate your view as one adult to another. 1. If you disagree with the product or strategy, don't play (I say to the complainers) 2. ED is a business. 3. Over time, I get bored with ED and do real things, like fixing my old car. 4. I like the product, but now I've split my attention across so many maps, I'm both overwhelmed and a little tired. 5. I appreciate your approach. Sometimes I think I like figuring out where ED is going more than the game itself.
I am of the age group that is old enough to remember seeing the Vietnam War live on tv. Listening to WWII, Korean and Vietnam veterans tell their stories in tge local bar my father took me to when i was a young kid. I grew up building models of US military aircraft and then running around the yard with them pretending to be flying them. I grew up with a love of US military aircraft going airshows and museums and stopping to watch them fly by whenever they were overhead. Watching WWII movies, and later the many modern day military movies. So long story short, DCS is a dream come true. To be able to sit in a VR cockpit of the aircraft i could only dream of getting near, and to actually control the systems is absolutely amazing. But i am of a dying breed that has a connection and love of this history that ED probably can not focus on and must focus on the interests of newer generation.
While ED is focused on moderen, The 3rd party devs have been working on a lot of pre 1990's aircraft. The F-100 and even the A-1H Skyraider already had updates this year posted.
I hadn't thought of using AI in that way. I was actually contemplating dumping the year's changelogs into Excel and manually assessing patterns, to address concerns the community has about all the stuff not being fixed, etc. etc. That might an exercise in tedium however...but it interests me...
Spot on and I'm with you a 60d 70d area is much needed in DCS even though they have tract towards Iraq, Syria, and Afghanistan. I think it will all evolve back to the steam gauges once the VN map comes out, which is much needed in DCS.
This prophesy actually terrifies me.........Yes I understand ED is trying to expand their customer base...........I understand that the every business for time immemorial was established to MAKE MONEY.........I'm just absolutely terrified they'll follow the path too far, and we'll end up with War Blunder. Make things cheap and dumb, and only the cheap and dumb will play, and we'll end up in a world of Air Quake. I'm sure its PROFITABLE, but, well............the thinking man (and I like to think I'm one, marginally), will be pushed out and left in the cold. Balance is the key here. And accountants are FAMOUS for upsetting balances, and killing golden geese. I hope and pray that this doesn't happen here. Unfortunately history has proven me wrong over and over again. Unfortunately, catering to the lowest common denominator is PROFITABLE. I wish they would have followed through and created their separate entry level game. But......accountants, once again.
Yet another sober analysis of DCS! I appreciate your calm and collected breakdown; much of the online space today surrounding the game today is perhaps a little wound up. Speaking of online spaces, I do feel that it's an influence on the direction of development of DCS that I think you may have perhaps overlooked. I'm sure a not insignificant amount of structuring of development priorities comes from what ED's community managers say the player base want, and they exist in the online space on places like Reddit, Discord, and the forums. I know the spotting dots in particular were something these places were focused on for months, and a large number of items we've seen added to DCS were those these communities requested. I think a lot of people in these online groups tend to gear towards servers and especially PvP servers, which is part of why they were on the spotting dots issue so hard. I suspect your chances of getting Vietnam era or other cold war stuff are perhaps a little better than you might think if I'm right, as the spaces in question have shifted hard recently to cold war aircraft (see the success of Enigma's Cold War server).
ED wont be able to make everyone's dream simulator. (I've been waiting for the F-4U Corsair for years and wonder if we'll ever see it). The world of flight sims is too big for one developer to manage. With that in mind, I think they are doing a pretty good job of keeping most of us happy. And when you compare them to other software developers, games in particular, they do an incredible job!
IF they do this right they won't have to. Already seeing signs of it. IF they can get large enough, and get a diversified enough 3rd party developer framework, all ED has to do is provide the "Core Rules\Code" and third party devs can do the rest. It's up to ED to make the code flexible and bendable enough to accommodate the devs. IF that can be done, all the heavy living would be on aircraft and map makers, provided the core code is flexible enough
I think I am in your camp. If it were up to me our next map would be Vietnam! The theory of this video makes sense, the only part that doesn't QUITE add up to me is the planned upcoming aircraft modules don't really fit (except maybe the c130 is being developed?) but the other upcoming modules I think of are the upcoming wwii planes for the pacific (though I am sure we both highly doubt that would be their primary direction), and then things like the crusader and cold war era corsair, neither of which are modern. Maybe I am missing other aircraft in development or maybe I am just being hopeful.. Either way, amid all the disappointments and let downs and game crashes I still don't find it too hard to remind myself that there is nothing else out there quite like DCS. And that program has taught me so much, both directly and even more so indirectly, and brought me closer to experiences I never otherwise would have had the chance to have.
Well, I take your point but separating the promises from the reality is a bit the issue I'm afraid. It's also true that ED has very little to say about what third party developers work on. There may well be some earlier aircraft on the way, but I don't think they will be the focus of EDs work. Ala in all, as we say on my channel - "In God We Trust, All Others Bring Data"
@@Sidekick65 thought a lot about what you said in your video while watching the 2025 and beyond. Would love to see a video of you sharing your thoughts if you had anything to add after watching 2025 and Beyond!
I think the things that most people get upset about is ED and DCS’s constant pattern of choosing to release unfinished and untested modules and maps. This sends a message to its customers that they care more about profiting off hype vs profiting off their products. This sets up and divides the community between those that are content with where things stand and see complaints as something to fear out of THEIR fear of losing DCS support in some way, and those that see the complaints as a necessary measure to keep the company on a more customer based path and ensure that the fixes maintain their loyalty to the company. In hindsight these complaints are what have driven DCS to keep improving the foundation of the game vs constantly adding onto it with content that introduces yet another possible point of failure. This is something that sheepish fanboys fail to grasp. Criticism from the community as a whole is ignored until it reaches a point where the sales numbers are negatively impacted and only then will the company react and try to actually fix what’s broken. No one is saying that DCS doesn’t have a right to make a profit. We’re just saying that they need to stop releasing untested and unfinished content. How do “I” know it’s untested, because as someone who is running a 14900k Intel processor with all its threads, DCS has released patch after patch that will work with a 14900k one update and then not work with it on the next update. You would think that before the update gets a stamp of approval for release that it would be tested on some of the latest hardware…… Instead it seems they just do a half assed job at testing (maybe on just one machine), say it’s good for release and then release it to the masses only to be bombarded by a wall of complaints that, again, divide the community. It’s a very very slow downward spiral with a poor outcome if they don’t do a course correction.
I like the calm and realist way you put the facts. Everybody has their favourite era, me personallu being part of that younger demografic i have a passion for that 80/90 era of fox1s (one of my favourite books is red storm rising, probably has something to do with it); but i'm consciuous that is not the main focus of the game. Tho i found it helps considering DCS a sandbox, in the same way i consider minecraft to be one. Yeah de developers want me to play the game in a certain way, but nobody forces me. We have all the tools lets make the game what we want. In this front i would really really appreciate if ED released a full API and SDK for modders. Immagine all the cool things people could make. Mods are what gives life to many games, such as arma 3, squad, fallout ecc. So i think it would improve dcs 10 fold. And i do believe that somone, somewhere has started developing a vietnam map for the cw side of thing. A lot of third party developers have realised that it's a fan favourite era and are developing for it, somone has to have realised that vietnam would make them rich.
Thanks for the thoughtful commentary. I agree that ED is wise to keep DCS as a sandbox and to encourage third party developers to take in directions that they are not focused on.
man, if I could get a game with the visuals and systems work of DCS, combined with the strategic, combined arms and persistent gameplay of WW2OL, I think that would be my dream game. be it ww2 era, or any cold war era. no scores (aside from kill count) just measurable effect in the virtual battlefield.
You said that there is a strategy but you miss a important point. Is the map tech from ED be able today to do a Vietnam map? Because that is maybe an important point in their decision making. Limitations by the tech to do relevant maps from that era Another thing that I missed in your analysis is, if ED is focused on that era where are the assets that should come with those maps and modules? I mean, for example the most obvious one is where are the ground units and new assets that should come with maps like Iraq and Afghanistan. Because there are not even hints that those are in the works.
Very upset regarding ED & Razban. The harrier is my favourite plane & i was hoping the Harrier carrier ops would of become like the Super carrier with a proper ATC, maybe internal bits to the boat so people would like to use the harrier more. Gutted
Very good video overall, but I have few questions regarding some topics you brought up. They are quite interesting ones, and they do have evidence (as seen with Eagle Dynamics' focus on modules), but I'm curious: Regarding the focus on modern time period, what exactly is the scope of it and on what sides do they focus on? This can be a really complicated one, because for some, the start of modern is essentially post 1991, where as some could be strict and say 21st century only counts as modern. As for the sides, it's clear that most of the focus is on BLUEFOR (NATO), but that's predominately because Russia is significantly stricter regarding information. Essentially, anything that's in front line service, with some really small exceptions (Mi-24P), is basically not allowed to be simulated. US on other hand seems fairly "generous", for lack of a better term, since we already have some 4th gens in it. Now European countries are a question, some are quite strict (Great Britain) while some seem very lenient (Germany. Regardless of what one thinks of the Eurofighter, it's crazy we're actually getting it in the game). Would the focus on modern era be of conflict not just with third parties, but also within ED itself? A lot of seeming "inconsistency" regarding aircraft choice seems to be based on that third parties are allowed to model any aircraft they want (Not that it's a bad thing, far from it. It should stay that way, but I am pointing out it could give that feel), which is more noticeable for some than the others. Something like F-4E Phantom II can be put in the modern setting just fine, it had and in some cases still has active service in the 21st century. Something like Polikarpov I-16 and incoming Lavochkin La-7 on other hand really stick out like sore thumbs, because they just have nothing that really fits them. Not even for World War 2, since ED has decided to focus more on late war period (Normandy map being prime example). And another thing that hasn't been mentioned is that a lot of latest ED modules are warbirds. That included incoming Hellcat too. Would that come in direct conflict with the modern era focus or is that just secondary focus of ED? The pool of available modern aircraft for DCS is getting ever smaller, so what should ED do then? So far, it's been said that the only real options ED has regarding modelling modern fighters are full fidelity F-15C and Super Hornet (probably F-18F due to potential multicrew capability, F-18E would likely be redundant), but after those two, it's a bit hard to see. Eurofighter's been taken by Heatblur, Rafale is not allowed, Gripen is ambiguous at the moment, and it is genuinely more likely we'll get F-35A in the game than we would ever get anything modern Russian. Now with helicopters, there's far more options (upgraded Cobras, Blackhawk, Sea Stallion family), so maybe I can see them getting more focused on helicopters in the near future? Those are my questions. Cheers.
Thank you for taking the time to post such a thoughtful response. I am not sure that I know the answers to any of your questions - and I'm not sure I should be the one who does. It would be a great discussion to have on Discord, though...
Hi Iain. Thanks for another very well thought out video. I quite agree that ED needs to to what is right for them as a company (ie. try to make money) as opposed to what you or I want. As we have discussed, I am very much in the same bracket as yourself, both age and interest-wise, and so have many of the same feelings as yourself. Where we differ is that I am not a sim nerd (I have too many other competing hobbies!) and am more of a casual player. However, I have invested in a good (WinWing) HOTAS system which I can also use on other PC games. From this perspective, the FC3 modules are a good compromise and the Community F-4E is ideal. Unlike the modern aircraft you mention, they don't require a full type-rating course in order to have fun with them, but there is enough complexity, especially with the switchable cockpit mod, to keep me interested. I can certainly see why ED would target the "younger" demographic as this is a big potential market, but I have concerns that DCS, even in its simplified FC form, requires too much time to be invested to be appealing to this user base. "Young people these days" 😳 seem to have very short attention spans and require instant gratification. Obviously this is a gross generalisation but witness the popularity of TikTok , X/Twitter and TH-cam Shorts as evidence. Unfortunately, like Hollywood going all-in on making content for the almost non-existent woke audience I fear that if ED targets the younger demographic it may find that it will be difficult to keep them engaged short of turning DCS into an arcade game. Going down this route will, as Hollywood found out, alienate their core audience and lead to diminishing returns.
Thanks for the thoughtful response. I agree that the jury will be out for a while on whether this strategy will work. But I am pretty sure this is the way it's going to go.
I am now 50ish, when I was younger I went to a lot of airshows, the variety of types was amazing in hindsight. I went to my first small airshow at Finnengly in 1986. Viggen, lightning, harrier, u2, nimrod, tornado, mirage III, vulcan, F16, phantom etc Compared to riat last year the variety was incredible and the pilot workloads in those machines was huge. Those earlier planes are my dream machines but i honestly wonder how well I could manage any of them at DCS levels of authenticity
Yet over the years ED delivered quite some WW2 content (with most warbirds developed by ED themselves), plus period correct maps, assets and campaigns. I'm really looking forward to their Pacific theater with Marianas WW2 and Hellcat, I'm under impression they probably will be released simultaneously. Plus we have Corsair from Magnitude 3, which should see the light of day at some point in the future, at least I hope so.
I agree with your take. The other thing to think about is the F-16, F-18 and Apache that DCS have in game are still current serving military aircraft, and MCS which is the military version of DCS goes after military simulator contracts. So I would assume anything they do in DCS is also done in part to gain more military contracts, hence the focus on modern aircraft and conflicts. I assume this is why there is a Eurofighter Typhoon on the way, to capture the non-American market. It is a little sad, I sit in both camps. I am not a fan of the mission editor and I find making missions a little boring as there are no surprises. The campaigns are fun but they don't last long. I prefer being able to jump into a dynamic online environment in either PvP or PvE, although the Shadow reapers PvPvE stuff has been a lot of fun. However I adore the cold war aircraft, the A-4 Skyhawk is my favourite but the F-4 is a close second, and I am super excited for the Skyraider. If you can't tell a Vietnam map would be phenomenal for me. The 40s through to 80s just have more interesting aircraft and conflicts, the engagements are more "in your face" and are a heck of a lot more fun. In my opinion it makes sense from a gaming simulator perspective, most of these aircraft are no longer in service so it is possible to dig up all the documentation and get access to the real airframes to make perfect modules without breaking any classification rules. This is probably why so many third party developers are making cold war aircraft. But I do understand why DCS is trending towards modern, people like shiny new things. Most friends I talk to about DCS often ask "does it have the F22?" which I laugh at but I understand. Most people aren't interested in the old and the bold. The ED method as unfortunate as it is makes sense, go with modern to win over the younger generation and military contracts. That's where the money is.
I wish we could see some sales data for individual modules. I would assume based on the vocal popularity of the Tomcat and Phantom, and until recently ECW server, that Cold War era is vastly popular. Rumors of the Fulda Gap and Vietnam adds to that trend. However, unfortunately warbirds have been pushed to the back of the development line. The WW2 era has never been properly promoted in DCS.
I am not as sophisticated as any DCS pilot, but I tried hard to move from War Thunder to DCS and even bought some modules and maps. Unfortunately the learning curve is too stip. I was so excited a few years back when the CEO kind of announced the development of MAC with a third person view much easier to step into the game. But that just vanished in vain. I think with such a grown community of WT half of them would move immediately to a better platform. However, FC is far away from this kind of experience and I think I won’t live so long to finally see that thing happening. Anyway, good luck guys, long support for this channel which looks and sounds extremely professional ❤❤❤
I do think which types of modules players are generally drawn to depends on the generation they're from (with exceptions of course). For myself, I'm an 80/90's kid and grew up with all kinds of books and posters of F-14's, 15's, 16's etc and am extremely interested in being able to fly those in the sim. Coldwar to me is my dad's era and I don't understand the appeal of it, which probably is due to me already seeing those aircraft as old when I was growing up.
At Least ED is doing something, a little Positive, and moving forward compared to other Sims. One example... is a Old Light Sim called Warbirds by iMagic Games. I Bet, a lot of money, people reading this have NEVER heard of it. Back in the 1990's to Mid 2000's Warbirds was holding it's own against Flight Sims like Falcon, the Janes Sims, Microsoft Flight Simulator, and newest of these Sims called LOCK On, Modern Air Combat (That became DCS). However, Warbirds was then (2008) turned into a "Internet Country Club" Word of Mouth only Sim. Now 16 years later, Most (Rich) Warbirds Players are too old to Fly or Dead. Other Business Practices Like Pay to Fly/Fight over the Internet, no Graphics Updates since 2005, and/or easy to defeat Security/Anti-Hacking Updates makes it Damn Hard "to talk" younger People into trying this Sim. Warbirds is not Dead but, Compared to DCS...... it's in a Coma.
Thanks to classification, modern is - by far - the hardest to pull off. The whole EW dimension is a glaring omission that severely limits the simulation aspect of modern warfare. Personally, I believe ED should add _a_ layer of plausible EW (and stealth) based purely on speculation and best estimates and make it clear that it's stipulation. I know it would be a pill to swallow for some of the player base, but it would be better than nothing. We already have stuff like the Ka-50, so, why not? Ironically, their best option for modeling high-quality simulation is everything _up to_ (and probably including) Vietnam - before things became really sophisticated. I understand ED's chase after new customers and their attempts to appeal to a younger demographic, but I'm not sure it's the _best_ approach for them. The average age of the existing player base is quite high up - and we _do_ appreciate CW era stuff.
While i may have missed the cold war years, (born just months after the collapse of the USSR, CIrca 1991) that era of jets does give me tingly sensations in all the right places, along with war birds. Give us Skyraiders, Corsairs both war bird and jet, Give us super sabres, and starfighters. While i may fly the viper currently, and the chinook as well, i still yern for the phantom II, and tomcat, and one day will fill those slots, as well as the Iroquois aka Huey Bell UH-1
Well in some sense the good news is that all you really have to do is wait and there's already a lot of cold war aircraft out and all that's really missing are a couple of maps and one or two more red force fighters. The de facto end of the Mig-23 project was a pretty major setback but ED could always develop their own or find another studio to work on it down the line. With Mig-23 and a Vietnam map we'd have almost everything.The things most people seem to want most (myself included) isn't more aircraft or even maps but more core game features like dynamic campaign and better A.I. as well as better support for larger multiplayer servers. The nature of DCS is that although priorities shift things basically never get removed, honestly to a fault. The Razbam modules should be pulled but instead they're just going to stay but get increasingly glitchy as time goes on. Given enough time just about everything on most people's wish lists will probably get added, just not as fast as we might like and likely in a semi broken permanent early access state.
I can't disagree with anything you said and I can wholeheartedly agree with you that DCS is going to be what ED wants DCS to be and no amount of whining is going to make DCS what "I" want it to be. I, too, am far from their target customer but I do find enough in there to keep me interested. I think ED puts a lot of effort into the graphics simply because good graphics make good videos and good videos sell DCS. Funnily enough, I find very few people in DCS utilize more than 10% of what the sim is actually capable of so I completely understand ED "simplifying" DCS to attract a wider audience. From my perspective, ED wants to attract the air war arcade player with superior graphics and the illusion that they can have the skills of a fighter pilot. In the end, DCS online is rarely used for more than replicating what War Thunder has been doing successfully for years - just with the illusion of being more than an "arcade" sim. Oh, and thanks for the couple of clips of some teammates doing formation flybys in your Airshow! Good times!
I am very upset with ED and RAZBAM. The latter committed IP issues and never corrected so ED didn’t pay them. RAZBAM is probably going to abandon their products and ED is going to not provide refunds , credit or a discount. That is terrible customer service.
Hi, we have to wait and see for now, until the dispute is resolved we wont be able to give any more information. It is frustrating for sure but these things do take time. Best regards - Bignewy
Well, unfortunately, you don't know what you're talking about. You can submit a support ticket on standalone through your ED account for a refund on the strike Eagle with store credit to ED However, in this case, ED did nothing wrong. Like an eager fish, you bite the first bait that comes out in the public, which was the payment issue. It's business and maybe you'll understand when the news comes out if we get the full release. But I'll tell you in my upcoming video why I said "goodbye" to RAZBAM. ~Juice
Well, with the announcement of the F-35 to DCS, it is very clear to where DCS is moving: forward. We are definitively not the main public of DCS. So, we will have this "Microsoft Flight Simulator-ization" of DCS, with many different aircraft with many different levels of fidelity. Is it good or bad? only time will tell.
ED may be gravitating toward modern, but, there is a lot of 3rd party development is going towards cold war. Except for the eurofighter and the C-130, every modules in the making is cold war or ww2 (if I'm not wrong).
It is an interesting method of predicting the future. However, making the world more immersive doesn't mean ED wants to stay shallow. ED has to make the world beautiful and authentic before moving on to the deeper sim level.
Im 21 and kinda new to dcs ive been around the block tho. and i love classic aircraft ww2 is my thing im sad they havent put more into ww2 as more new player are coming to dcs
Is there any update as to what will happen to F15E if ED and Razbam go their separate ways? Would the module die? Could ED buy the rights to continue developing it? I really want to get it but this issue has been going on for way too long, and I'm contemplating buying it now and hope for the best while enjoying it while its still working and then refund it later for store credit and buy another plane I've been wanting like the Phantom. Any clue as to likelihood of outcome or if this module is even working properly at the time?
A voice of reason in the wilderness….. It sounds, by what you are saying here, that it will be up to the third party developers to provide the maps and aircraft for WW2, Korea and Vietnam, and that ED will eventually produce a map for the Ukraine conflict.
First, IMHO, DCS has never been better. With that outta the way... Why would a person even choose DCS if what they _really_ like - want - is a 'lite' flight sim? There's nothing wrong with game boxes, playing a flight game on your phone, or something like War Thunder. Seems they are catering to those that want all the bells & whistles...but not really. I've narrowed it down to the term: "Hi-fidelity, Instant Action" (in both SP an d MP). That's where the locus seems to be moving towards. From a biz standpoint it makes sense to, yes: dumb things down - make it easy - to enlarge the customer base. Understood. You have to make money. Just don't forget: 1) those that are here because of the depth and details 2) those that prefer OFF line - it feels like Single Player is being forgotten about (for some time now). Yes, you can _try_ to find a 'clan' to join but who has the time for cyclic auditions? And a good rant should always provide possible solutions. In no particular order: 1) Fix the AI (some of it is better than people give it credit for, but there are glaring omissions too). This works for MP also There are a lot of PVE servers out there. And obviously for SP 2) Performance. For no other reason than cost (in PC hardware) 3) Open things up to allow those with the inclination and 'passion' (getting tired of that one) to ADD TO the "world" part of DCS World. Sure, there will be a lot of garbage produced but there will be many that aren't - variety. The Dynamic Campaign I predict will be found wanting by many (see above) over time and a waste of money spent developing. I hope I'm wrong here, sincerely. I used to crave this but what I really wanted was a world that ALLOWED more authenticity; was not empty; not reliant on the right crowd showing up [on a server] at the right time. To wit: provide tools, like a persistence API. Cos that's what it [a DC] boils down to. Then ED could step back and watch what gets created. SRS vs the in-sim comms was pointed out to me as a good example: the community invented a wheel, then ED re-invented it. Lastly, IMHO, DCS has never been better. If I'm wrong I'm sure someone will tell me.
I feel like Ed is targeting me, I basically have no interest in playing single player, I like the complexity of the aircraft but I'm not hyper milsim about it and I run vr so I need performance improvements. That being said I love cold war aircraft! I flew the teen series stuff for awhile but I got bored of button pushing and I now enjoy the limitations of older aircraft.
Constructive comment: Few videos in, since finding your channel, your voice is very low so it gets drowned out by the aircraft sounds in the back. Just a suggestion, but maybe turn your voice up some in the mix. Appreciate the commentary. Cheers!
Any reasonable customer would want DCS to have core features like functional AI at a minimum. This isn't a "me, me, me" thing. It's a "finish the job you started 15 years ago" thing.
Eggggszactly. Respect their decisions and enjoy it for what it is and what it becomes. Contribute constructive when you see major "playability" issues and create a welcoming environment for new players so that the business thrives. Then start asking for stuff ;-)
Considering how ED stated publicly they "can not" (or simply don't want to) model modern redfor planes, then no, I don't believe the strategy is coherent at all. Especially not in the multiplayer space you mention. We simply just don't have anything to play against. In fact I doubt they are thinking this far ahead. Most of the systems in those modern jet's aren't even standardized to a meaningful degree (for example radars). This actually causes a significant unbalance in the models - some just come with a big disadvantage by better modeling. If it were a coherent strategy ED would make sure that all aircraft in the same grouping would be at a similar quality. Unlike you I do fly all modules and across all eras. And no, even flying all of them - in not a single one did I see or feel coherence. It's basically a bunch of ingredients, but never a full meal, let alone a fully cooked one. And yes, it would be amazing if there was a strategy. However, with the current pace I'm unsure if even the younger ones will ever see it become a reality. It's almost sad that we have to admit that even a single aircraft, like the F4U, is almost as long in development as Star Citizen. That said, yeah, as usual. It's a very split community with different views. Some being realistic, others trying to be optimistic. In the end things won't progress any faster though, no matter what we do. If it's throwing funds and them, not doing that - it doesn't change anything in terms of development speeds, openness to the community etc. They seem to be fully aware of the monopoly they have and just don't bother with making a corporate culture happen that would be required in any normal business just to survive if it was in a competitive space. I truly believe that nothing will ever change that until we have a competing product. I will be pleasantly surprised if I'm wrong, of course. 🙂
I think the only way ED can go is focusing on cold war and creating high fidelity redfor (Soviet) fixed wing aircraft. I am more interested in modern era technology but there's no way they'll ever get the chance to map and recreate a modern Russian jet in DCS. Releasing the full fidelity MiG-29 should be their top priority if they want people to play multiplayer on the new maps and recreate historical events. They keep releasing bluefor modules and it's getting boring. Playing multi is getting boring as well.
Well, judge them by what gets done, not by what the marketing department puts out. That's more or less my point - "In God We Trust - All Others Bring Data" (and release notes).
@, ED 2025 and beyond. F-35 full fidelity? As a cold war era kid and ground pounder I couldn’t be less interested. However, I guess another indicator ED is heavily invested in military support contracts and this is driving their strategy and business plan vs B2c ‘gamers’ market. Any other thoughts on this?
I so wish we had an israel map, a mirage iii, a mig 23 (now that Razbam is gone), a mig 25. Then we could have servers and campaigns re-enacting the 6 day and Yom-Kipper wars.
I watched your entire video and I still don't understand what you want out of DCS. Do you want more 20th century post WWII aircraft, assets and missions? Why is this a zero-sum game against multiplayer? Because, I'd be honest in saying that multiplayer feels less polished than the system mastering, mission building, single-player side of DCS. If you want to learn systems and play missions alone in single player, DCS has you covered. DCS multiplayer is a strange, problematic contraption that could certainly be streamlined and improved upon.
Well, to be fair, if I could have everything I wanted it would be a flight sim with a Vietnam map set in 1967-70 and a NW Europe map set in 1980. It would feature some additional cold war a/c (which I won't list). It would have a mission editor that was easy to use so that I could use it as a sandbox to create missions and campaigns so that I could try to "live history" or some version of it. It would have decent modelling of weapons and AI behaviour that accurately recreated the combat environment of the time. Basically I want a combination of DCS, CMO, and Armored Brigade. I don't expect anybody to want to GIVE that to me, but that's my perfect world.
i came from WT to DCS specifically for online. i like flying against same players, and not against bots. if u took away online, i wouldn't have come here, despite fact that i always wanted to fly on f16 and mig29. and second part - there are many blue modules, up to 2000s, and what does the red side have? almost nothing. on some servers, blue modules play against blue modules. yes, this nonsense of server owners is caused by fact that otherwise red side will simpli lose almost always. and what do we see? blue modules came out again this year, eurofighter is again visible on the logo in X. honestly, Im BORED flying on the f16 against the f15, f18, f14. I fly su27 and mig29, which are inferior to the blue modules (f15e, f16Sbl50, f18 lot20) in modifications that are curentli in game in terms of wapons and systems. that is, tere is no confrontation as such. release of the f15c (full), f16a BL5/10, f-18 early has not been anounced and will not be. so, onlin batles as confrontation in 4th generation are beating by ome, or reduction in their weapons by server owners. and players of blue side do not like this.
Personally, I think ED makes a mistake when they want to go for the gamer you described, the "hop in and fly" kind of player. Those gamers, in general, are not into a game for a long time, and lose interest too fast there are many other games, less realistic ones that cater to their interest already like IL-2, Warthunder etc. I really think all eras have something worth playing but IMO the hay day of jet air combat ended in the last years of the 20th and early years of the 21st century.
But they don't have to play for long. As long as they buy a few modules before moving on ED will be happy. It is certainly a direction I don't like to see but I don't matter to ED.
@@yappydawg8985 That is a good point. There is however still a golden rule in marketing about that. As I only know it in German, here is a rough translation: "long time customers are more profitable than new customers"
Nick Grey constantly reiterates that DCS is a Sand Box, and he provides the basics, while you add the imagination and the missions you want to have fun with. The real issue is, there was several years where not much was happening and now they/we are suffering as they try to catch up. Now, with real competition, they have no time to relax on the laurels. I think they have a ways to catch up yet, but looking back they have come a long way indeed. I am glad ED has pointed out all they have accomplished in 2024 which was not their best year, however, as people fly their modules and enjoy the hard work ED has done, they constantly bad mouth them. Which is ironic, but that's what people do. I think they were working so hard on things in code and behind the scenes people cannot see as they are getting ready for the future, that is why people are - as always, not happy. I am looking forward to 2025 and while I started flying in DCS around 14 years ago and going back to Falcon 4 days and earlier, I have to say I feel like a kid in a candy store still to this day. Sometimes I am embarrassing giddy with enjoyment, lol! It's all about expectations and your control of your life. Have fun out there!
Dear Iain, this is utter bs, how would AI know ... Does it magically see into the minds of the actual developers, even RazBam? The title is utter clickbait which is not up to the standards of an otherwise high quality channel ...
Perhaps you should listen to the video. I used a large language model to analyze what ED said in their release notes. The patterns it found indicate what EDs priorities are as demonstrated by their actions. This was a perfect use of modern AI. It gave me insight upon which to build inferences which I could otherwise have done. AND if a little clickbait is such a bad thing kindly explain why this video is getting viewed a 5x the normal rate. Thanks for your input but I don't agree with your argument.
Well said sir!
I'm in your corner as for Vietnam, I much prefer that era to the more modern, but like you, I understand EDs side.
I'm still hoping for a Vietnam map, but not holding my breath.
Please keep these positive videos coming.
ED have confirmed that they are doing a Vietnam map at some point, this was stated 2 years ago so it might very well be in development!
In God We Trust - All Others Bring Data (and released products) ;-)
As ED has pointed out, they are fast approaching a hard stop on the "Modern Combat" side of things which means they have no where forward to go, but there is plenty of room in the past to go. Hence you will see as things start to move into the Pacific WW2 scenarios and up to the Viet Nam era.
@@rwhunt99it would be cool if they finished/debugged their modules instead of coming out with maps no one asked for, which further fragments online stuff. Caucuses could use some love. Everything else should be left up to 3rd party devs since they seem to do a better job anyway.
What a lovely, balanced, nuanced critique.
As a 51 year old sim nerd, I agree with the idea that the Vietnam and Cold War periods have enormous potential for fun (after all one of our favorite activities is dropping unguided iron bombs on targets). I also understand I'm possibly not in the demographics that ED is hoping to sell modules to (I already own most modules apart from some of the WWII ones). I remember a long time ago going online for the first time in a sim called Jane's USAF. It was one of those survey sims that had Vietnam era jets like the F-4 as well as more modern USAF fighters like the F-16 (if you think about it, it is quite similar to what ED does with the planes they put in Flaming Cliffs 2024 to attract new players with planes from Korea to modern times). One of the fun things I remember doing in that old sim was dropping napalm or MK-82s on simulated targets on the Ho Chi Minh Trail along the Vietnamese border. Another thing I did with my squad buddies at the time is I had built missions with modern jets in Vietnam loosely based on a fictional scenario from Tom Clancy's non-fiction book Fighter Wing. Without getting in the details, it provided a fictional storyline where the US Air Force could plausibly deploy F-16s, F-117s, B-1Bs, F-15Cs and F-15Es to Vietnam from Mountain Home AFB. In that sense, I feel a Vietnam map would make quite a bit of sense to either re-create historically accurate scenarios from the sixties and seventies, as well as having a fun "what if" area to put modern jets in. That's why I personally feel ED has everything to gain $$$ by producing a map of Vietnam. They'd certainly get my money. The other rumored map I'd certainly buy without question would be a Fulda Gap European map. Oh, look, I wanted to write a short and concise comment to say "Good job once again Sidekick!" and I got carried away... 🙊
I do believe someone is working on a Viet Nam map, but when it comes out is anyone's guess. I'm 74 you lil' whippersnapper, lol!
I think 40-55 age group is a significant part of the DCS community. I came from the world before Discord where forums were the means of communication. Places like simHQ and others like it. I have been flying multiplayer since 2001 in the original IL2, and most of the people I flew with got into DCS at some point. Most of us fall under the 40-55 age group.
@@rwhunt99 I hope to continue to have fun simming well into my 70s and beyond! My hat is off to you good sir!
Under the assumption that this is the internal strategy, this is why I am so appreciative of the third parties that have partnered with ED. They seem very willing, if not enthusiastic about developing the Cold War sim-scape that I’m most interested in.
Take out Heatblur and you’re missing the Viggen and F4, take out RAZBAAM and you’re missing the Mig-21. You basically don’t have Enigmas Cold War server then. You’d be flying A-10As against Su-25s and Hinds against Huey’s.
@@OCinneide Mig 21 isnt from razbam, mirage 2000c is and its a late cold war plane
Thoughtful analysis and commentary, as always. Thanks for being a voice of reason! As a long-time sim nerd myself, I (alas) agree with you completely. This probably means that DCS will be with us for a long time, which is probably on balance, a good thing.
Thanks, I appreciate the feedback.
Thank you, I enjoyed that. A very innovative way to explore what has happened and what the path maybe. The summary of the AI findings and your suggested conclusions brings a balance to the extreme ends of this discussion. Your thinking makes a lot of sense.
Well done!
DCS can be incredibly frustrating then incredibly amazing within the space of a few days. What a world and time we live in.
Now if we could only forward and rewind track replays…..
"nobody else can claim to be simulating air combat in that era"... uuuuh, BMS?
Thank God we have BMS.
DCS is spread too thin.
Well said and sounds very reasonable.
Really have been enjoying your perspective on the biz aspect, in addition to all your regularly scheduled content!
Great idea, great delivery, great vid. Well done!
I'm with you in the Disappointed but Unsurprised camp and agree with all the reasoning outlined...but it is frustrating to see setting after setting half-arsed, when some commitment to the product would deliver an absolutely top-class simming environment.
Finally a more nuanced and logical view. We need more people like you. And less me me me people.
Very much enjoyed that analysis- thank you
Your opinions does make a lot of sense and may explains why Heat blur, rather unexpectedly to me anyway, focused on the Typhoon release not the A6. Interesting though that a lot of the 3rd parties are focused on delivering Cold war platforms. Is this then an ED strategy to demarcate development ? Interesting stuff
DCS 2025 reveal adds further validity to your view that ED is focusing on a younger demographic
We will have to rely on 3rd parties for cold war platforms 😊
I truly appreciate your view as one adult to another.
1. If you disagree with the product or strategy, don't play (I say to the complainers)
2. ED is a business.
3. Over time, I get bored with ED and do real things, like fixing my old car.
4. I like the product, but now I've split my attention across so many maps, I'm both overwhelmed and a little tired.
5. I appreciate your approach. Sometimes I think I like figuring out where ED is going more than the game itself.
I am of the age group that is old enough to remember seeing the Vietnam War live on tv. Listening to WWII, Korean and Vietnam veterans tell their stories in tge local bar my father took me to when i was a young kid. I grew up building models of US military aircraft and then running around the yard with them pretending to be flying them. I grew up with a love of US military aircraft going airshows and museums and stopping to watch them fly by whenever they were overhead. Watching WWII movies, and later the many modern day military movies. So long story short, DCS is a dream come true. To be able to sit in a VR cockpit of the aircraft i could only dream of getting near, and to actually control the systems is absolutely amazing. But i am of a dying breed that has a connection and love of this history that ED probably can not focus on and must focus on the interests of newer generation.
Wow, this is a great use of AI that I never thought of. Thank you for this video!
While ED is focused on moderen, The 3rd party devs have been working on a lot of pre 1990's aircraft. The F-100 and even the A-1H Skyraider already had updates this year posted.
I hadn't thought of using AI in that way. I was actually contemplating dumping the year's changelogs into Excel and manually assessing patterns, to address concerns the community has about all the stuff not being fixed, etc. etc. That might an exercise in tedium however...but it interests me...
Spot on and I'm with you a 60d 70d area is much needed in DCS even though they have tract towards Iraq, Syria, and Afghanistan. I think it will all evolve back to the steam gauges once the VN map comes out, which is much needed in DCS.
Thank you Iain.
This prophesy actually terrifies me.........Yes I understand ED is trying to expand their customer base...........I understand that the every business for time immemorial was established to MAKE MONEY.........I'm just absolutely terrified they'll follow the path too far, and we'll end up with War Blunder. Make things cheap and dumb, and only the cheap and dumb will play, and we'll end up in a world of Air Quake. I'm sure its PROFITABLE, but, well............the thinking man (and I like to think I'm one, marginally), will be pushed out and left in the cold.
Balance is the key here. And accountants are FAMOUS for upsetting balances, and killing golden geese. I hope and pray that this doesn't happen here. Unfortunately history has proven me wrong over and over again. Unfortunately, catering to the lowest common denominator is PROFITABLE.
I wish they would have followed through and created their separate entry level game. But......accountants, once again.
Yet another sober analysis of DCS! I appreciate your calm and collected breakdown; much of the online space today surrounding the game today is perhaps a little wound up.
Speaking of online spaces, I do feel that it's an influence on the direction of development of DCS that I think you may have perhaps overlooked. I'm sure a not insignificant amount of structuring of development priorities comes from what ED's community managers say the player base want, and they exist in the online space on places like Reddit, Discord, and the forums.
I know the spotting dots in particular were something these places were focused on for months, and a large number of items we've seen added to DCS were those these communities requested. I think a lot of people in these online groups tend to gear towards servers and especially PvP servers, which is part of why they were on the spotting dots issue so hard.
I suspect your chances of getting Vietnam era or other cold war stuff are perhaps a little better than you might think if I'm right, as the spaces in question have shifted hard recently to cold war aircraft (see the success of Enigma's Cold War server).
ED wont be able to make everyone's dream simulator. (I've been waiting for the F-4U Corsair for years and wonder if we'll ever see it). The world of flight sims is too big for one developer to manage. With that in mind, I think they are doing a pretty good job of keeping most of us happy. And when you compare them to other software developers, games in particular, they do an incredible job!
IF they do this right they won't have to. Already seeing signs of it. IF they can get large enough, and get a diversified enough 3rd party developer framework, all ED has to do is provide the "Core Rules\Code" and third party devs can do the rest. It's up to ED to make the code flexible and bendable enough to accommodate the devs. IF that can be done, all the heavy living would be on aircraft and map makers, provided the core code is flexible enough
I think I am in your camp. If it were up to me our next map would be Vietnam! The theory of this video makes sense, the only part that doesn't QUITE add up to me is the planned upcoming aircraft modules don't really fit (except maybe the c130 is being developed?) but the other upcoming modules I think of are the upcoming wwii planes for the pacific (though I am sure we both highly doubt that would be their primary direction), and then things like the crusader and cold war era corsair, neither of which are modern. Maybe I am missing other aircraft in development or maybe I am just being hopeful.. Either way, amid all the disappointments and let downs and game crashes I still don't find it too hard to remind myself that there is nothing else out there quite like DCS. And that program has taught me so much, both directly and even more so indirectly, and brought me closer to experiences I never otherwise would have had the chance to have.
Well, I take your point but separating the promises from the reality is a bit the issue I'm afraid. It's also true that ED has very little to say about what third party developers work on. There may well be some earlier aircraft on the way, but I don't think they will be the focus of EDs work. Ala in all, as we say on my channel - "In God We Trust, All Others Bring Data"
@@Sidekick65 thought a lot about what you said in your video while watching the 2025 and beyond. Would love to see a video of you sharing your thoughts if you had anything to add after watching 2025 and Beyond!
I think the things that most people get upset about is ED and DCS’s constant pattern of choosing to release unfinished and untested modules and maps. This sends a message to its customers that they care more about profiting off hype vs profiting off their products. This sets up and divides the community between those that are content with where things stand and see complaints as something to fear out of THEIR fear of losing DCS support in some way, and those that see the complaints as a necessary measure to keep the company on a more customer based path and ensure that the fixes maintain their loyalty to the company.
In hindsight these complaints are what have driven DCS to keep improving the foundation of the game vs constantly adding onto it with content that introduces yet another possible point of failure.
This is something that sheepish fanboys fail to grasp. Criticism from the community as a whole is ignored until it reaches a point where the sales numbers are negatively impacted and only then will the company react and try to actually fix what’s broken.
No one is saying that DCS doesn’t have a right to make a profit. We’re just saying that they need to stop releasing untested and unfinished content.
How do “I” know it’s untested, because as someone who is running a 14900k Intel processor with all its threads, DCS has released patch after patch that will work with a 14900k one update and then not work with it on the next update. You would think that before the update gets a stamp of approval for release that it would be tested on some of the latest hardware…… Instead it seems they just do a half assed job at testing (maybe on just one machine), say it’s good for release and then release it to the masses only to be bombarded by a wall of complaints that, again, divide the community. It’s a very very slow downward spiral with a poor outcome if they don’t do a course correction.
A characteristically together and rational take on the whole thing, as ever!!
I like the calm and realist way you put the facts. Everybody has their favourite era, me personallu being part of that younger demografic i have a passion for that 80/90 era of fox1s (one of my favourite books is red storm rising, probably has something to do with it); but i'm consciuous that is not the main focus of the game. Tho i found it helps considering DCS a sandbox, in the same way i consider minecraft to be one. Yeah de developers want me to play the game in a certain way, but nobody forces me. We have all the tools lets make the game what we want. In this front i would really really appreciate if ED released a full API and SDK for modders. Immagine all the cool things people could make. Mods are what gives life to many games, such as arma 3, squad, fallout ecc. So i think it would improve dcs 10 fold.
And i do believe that somone, somewhere has started developing a vietnam map for the cw side of thing. A lot of third party developers have realised that it's a fan favourite era and are developing for it, somone has to have realised that vietnam would make them rich.
Thanks for the thoughtful commentary. I agree that ED is wise to keep DCS as a sandbox and to encourage third party developers to take in directions that they are not focused on.
man, if I could get a game with the visuals and systems work of DCS, combined with the strategic, combined arms and persistent gameplay of WW2OL, I think that would be my dream game. be it ww2 era, or any cold war era. no scores (aside from kill count) just measurable effect in the virtual battlefield.
You said that there is a strategy but you miss a important point. Is the map tech from ED be able today to do a Vietnam map? Because that is maybe an important point in their decision making. Limitations by the tech to do relevant maps from that era
Another thing that I missed in your analysis is, if ED is focused on that era where are the assets that should come with those maps and modules?
I mean, for example the most obvious one is where are the ground units and new assets that should come with maps like Iraq and Afghanistan. Because there are not even hints that those are in the works.
Very upset regarding ED & Razban. The harrier is my favourite plane & i was hoping the Harrier carrier ops would of become like the Super carrier with a proper ATC, maybe internal bits to the boat so people would like to use the harrier more. Gutted
Very good video overall, but I have few questions regarding some topics you brought up. They are quite interesting ones, and they do have evidence (as seen with Eagle Dynamics' focus on modules), but I'm curious:
Regarding the focus on modern time period, what exactly is the scope of it and on what sides do they focus on? This can be a really complicated one, because for some, the start of modern is essentially post 1991, where as some could be strict and say 21st century only counts as modern. As for the sides, it's clear that most of the focus is on BLUEFOR (NATO), but that's predominately because Russia is significantly stricter regarding information. Essentially, anything that's in front line service, with some really small exceptions (Mi-24P), is basically not allowed to be simulated. US on other hand seems fairly "generous", for lack of a better term, since we already have some 4th gens in it. Now European countries are a question, some are quite strict (Great Britain) while some seem very lenient (Germany. Regardless of what one thinks of the Eurofighter, it's crazy we're actually getting it in the game).
Would the focus on modern era be of conflict not just with third parties, but also within ED itself? A lot of seeming "inconsistency" regarding aircraft choice seems to be based on that third parties are allowed to model any aircraft they want (Not that it's a bad thing, far from it. It should stay that way, but I am pointing out it could give that feel), which is more noticeable for some than the others. Something like F-4E Phantom II can be put in the modern setting just fine, it had and in some cases still has active service in the 21st century. Something like Polikarpov I-16 and incoming Lavochkin La-7 on other hand really stick out like sore thumbs, because they just have nothing that really fits them. Not even for World War 2, since ED has decided to focus more on late war period (Normandy map being prime example). And another thing that hasn't been mentioned is that a lot of latest ED modules are warbirds. That included incoming Hellcat too. Would that come in direct conflict with the modern era focus or is that just secondary focus of ED?
The pool of available modern aircraft for DCS is getting ever smaller, so what should ED do then? So far, it's been said that the only real options ED has regarding modelling modern fighters are full fidelity F-15C and Super Hornet (probably F-18F due to potential multicrew capability, F-18E would likely be redundant), but after those two, it's a bit hard to see. Eurofighter's been taken by Heatblur, Rafale is not allowed, Gripen is ambiguous at the moment, and it is genuinely more likely we'll get F-35A in the game than we would ever get anything modern Russian. Now with helicopters, there's far more options (upgraded Cobras, Blackhawk, Sea Stallion family), so maybe I can see them getting more focused on helicopters in the near future?
Those are my questions. Cheers.
Thank you for taking the time to post such a thoughtful response. I am not sure that I know the answers to any of your questions - and I'm not sure I should be the one who does. It would be a great discussion to have on Discord, though...
Look at you getting me all hyped for the F8
Go see the Vietnam War Vessels guys. I love their aircraft for AI "Context" in my videos. They do great work.
Nicely done!
Glad you enjoyed it.
Hi Iain. Thanks for another very well thought out video. I quite agree that ED needs to to what is right for them as a company (ie. try to make money) as opposed to what you or I want. As we have discussed, I am very much in the same bracket as yourself, both age and interest-wise, and so have many of the same feelings as yourself. Where we differ is that I am not a sim nerd (I have too many other competing hobbies!) and am more of a casual player. However, I have invested in a good (WinWing) HOTAS system which I can also use on other PC games. From this perspective, the FC3 modules are a good compromise and the Community F-4E is ideal. Unlike the modern aircraft you mention, they don't require a full type-rating course in order to have fun with them, but there is enough complexity, especially with the switchable cockpit mod, to keep me interested.
I can certainly see why ED would target the "younger" demographic as this is a big potential market, but I have concerns that DCS, even in its simplified FC form, requires too much time to be invested to be appealing to this user base. "Young people these days" 😳 seem to have very short attention spans and require instant gratification. Obviously this is a gross generalisation but witness the popularity of TikTok , X/Twitter and TH-cam Shorts as evidence. Unfortunately, like Hollywood going all-in on making content for the almost non-existent woke audience I fear that if ED targets the younger demographic it may find that it will be difficult to keep them engaged short of turning DCS into an arcade game. Going down this route will, as Hollywood found out, alienate their core audience and lead to diminishing returns.
Thanks for the thoughtful response. I agree that the jury will be out for a while on whether this strategy will work. But I am pretty sure this is the way it's going to go.
I am now 50ish, when I was younger I went to a lot of airshows, the variety of types was amazing in hindsight. I went to my first small airshow at Finnengly in 1986. Viggen, lightning, harrier, u2, nimrod, tornado, mirage III, vulcan, F16, phantom etc Compared to riat last year the variety was incredible and the pilot workloads in those machines was huge.
Those earlier planes are my dream machines but i honestly wonder how well I could manage any of them at DCS levels of authenticity
Yet over the years ED delivered quite some WW2 content (with most warbirds developed by ED themselves), plus period correct maps, assets and campaigns. I'm really looking forward to their Pacific theater with Marianas WW2 and Hellcat, I'm under impression they probably will be released simultaneously. Plus we have Corsair from Magnitude 3, which should see the light of day at some point in the future, at least I hope so.
I agree with your take. The other thing to think about is the F-16, F-18 and Apache that DCS have in game are still current serving military aircraft, and MCS which is the military version of DCS goes after military simulator contracts. So I would assume anything they do in DCS is also done in part to gain more military contracts, hence the focus on modern aircraft and conflicts. I assume this is why there is a Eurofighter Typhoon on the way, to capture the non-American market.
It is a little sad, I sit in both camps. I am not a fan of the mission editor and I find making missions a little boring as there are no surprises. The campaigns are fun but they don't last long. I prefer being able to jump into a dynamic online environment in either PvP or PvE, although the Shadow reapers PvPvE stuff has been a lot of fun. However I adore the cold war aircraft, the A-4 Skyhawk is my favourite but the F-4 is a close second, and I am super excited for the Skyraider. If you can't tell a Vietnam map would be phenomenal for me. The 40s through to 80s just have more interesting aircraft and conflicts, the engagements are more "in your face" and are a heck of a lot more fun.
In my opinion it makes sense from a gaming simulator perspective, most of these aircraft are no longer in service so it is possible to dig up all the documentation and get access to the real airframes to make perfect modules without breaking any classification rules. This is probably why so many third party developers are making cold war aircraft. But I do understand why DCS is trending towards modern, people like shiny new things. Most friends I talk to about DCS often ask "does it have the F22?" which I laugh at but I understand. Most people aren't interested in the old and the bold.
The ED method as unfortunate as it is makes sense, go with modern to win over the younger generation and military contracts. That's where the money is.
I wish we could see some sales data for individual modules. I would assume based on the vocal popularity of the Tomcat and Phantom, and until recently ECW server, that Cold War era is vastly popular. Rumors of the Fulda Gap and Vietnam adds to that trend. However, unfortunately warbirds have been pushed to the back of the development line. The WW2 era has never been properly promoted in DCS.
I am not as sophisticated as any DCS pilot, but I tried hard to move from War Thunder to DCS and even bought some modules and maps. Unfortunately the learning curve is too stip. I was so excited a few years back when the CEO kind of announced the development of MAC with a third person view much easier to step into the game. But that just vanished in vain. I think with such a grown community of WT half of them would move immediately to a better platform. However, FC is far away from this kind of experience and I think I won’t live so long to finally see that thing happening. Anyway, good luck guys, long support for this channel which looks and sounds extremely professional ❤❤❤
I do think which types of modules players are generally drawn to depends on the generation they're from (with exceptions of course). For myself, I'm an 80/90's kid and grew up with all kinds of books and posters of F-14's, 15's, 16's etc and am extremely interested in being able to fly those in the sim. Coldwar to me is my dad's era and I don't understand the appeal of it, which probably is due to me already seeing those aircraft as old when I was growing up.
At Least ED is doing something, a little Positive, and moving forward compared to other Sims. One example... is a Old Light Sim called Warbirds by iMagic Games. I Bet, a lot of money, people reading this have NEVER heard of it. Back in the 1990's to Mid 2000's Warbirds was holding it's own against Flight Sims like Falcon, the Janes Sims, Microsoft Flight Simulator, and newest of these Sims called LOCK On, Modern Air Combat (That became DCS).
However, Warbirds was then (2008) turned into a "Internet Country Club" Word of Mouth only Sim. Now 16 years later, Most (Rich) Warbirds Players are too old to Fly or Dead. Other Business Practices Like Pay to Fly/Fight over the Internet, no Graphics Updates since 2005, and/or easy to defeat Security/Anti-Hacking Updates makes it Damn Hard "to talk" younger People into trying this Sim. Warbirds is not Dead but, Compared to DCS...... it's in a Coma.
Thanks to classification, modern is - by far - the hardest to pull off. The whole EW dimension is a glaring omission that severely limits the simulation aspect of modern warfare. Personally, I believe ED should add _a_ layer of plausible EW (and stealth) based purely on speculation and best estimates and make it clear that it's stipulation. I know it would be a pill to swallow for some of the player base, but it would be better than nothing. We already have stuff like the Ka-50, so, why not?
Ironically, their best option for modeling high-quality simulation is everything _up to_ (and probably including) Vietnam - before things became really sophisticated. I understand ED's chase after new customers and their attempts to appeal to a younger demographic, but I'm not sure it's the _best_ approach for them. The average age of the existing player base is quite high up - and we _do_ appreciate CW era stuff.
While i may have missed the cold war years, (born just months after the collapse of the USSR, CIrca 1991) that era of jets does give me tingly sensations in all the right places, along with war birds. Give us Skyraiders, Corsairs both war bird and jet, Give us super sabres, and starfighters. While i may fly the viper currently, and the chinook as well, i still yern for the phantom II, and tomcat, and one day will fill those slots, as well as the Iroquois aka Huey Bell UH-1
Well in some sense the good news is that all you really have to do is wait and there's already a lot of cold war aircraft out and all that's really missing are a couple of maps and one or two more red force fighters. The de facto end of the Mig-23 project was a pretty major setback but ED could always develop their own or find another studio to work on it down the line. With Mig-23 and a Vietnam map we'd have almost everything.The things most people seem to want most (myself included) isn't more aircraft or even maps but more core game features like dynamic campaign and better A.I. as well as better support for larger multiplayer servers. The nature of DCS is that although priorities shift things basically never get removed, honestly to a fault. The Razbam modules should be pulled but instead they're just going to stay but get increasingly glitchy as time goes on. Given enough time just about everything on most people's wish lists will probably get added, just not as fast as we might like and likely in a semi broken permanent early access state.
I can't disagree with anything you said and I can wholeheartedly agree with you that DCS is going to be what ED wants DCS to be and no amount of whining is going to make DCS what "I" want it to be. I, too, am far from their target customer but I do find enough in there to keep me interested.
I think ED puts a lot of effort into the graphics simply because good graphics make good videos and good videos sell DCS. Funnily enough, I find very few people in DCS utilize more than 10% of what the sim is actually capable of so I completely understand ED "simplifying" DCS to attract a wider audience. From my perspective, ED wants to attract the air war arcade player with superior graphics and the illusion that they can have the skills of a fighter pilot. In the end, DCS online is rarely used for more than replicating what War Thunder has been doing successfully for years - just with the illusion of being more than an "arcade" sim.
Oh, and thanks for the couple of clips of some teammates doing formation flybys in your Airshow! Good times!
Very good video. Many thanks Ian. Spot on 🙏🏻. Happy New Year to you and your family. Kind regards Nick
Thanks very much for taking the time to respond! It was a guess, but it seems it was a good one. Good Luck!
Really enjoy your videos but the background noise is very high in this one and it makes it difficult to focus on what you're saying.
Thanks for the feedback. Sometimes I just miss the mark on the sound mixing. I apologize.
@@Sidekick65 It got better later in the video, but at the start it was a bit distracting. But I did enjoy the video. Thank you.
I am very upset with ED and RAZBAM. The latter committed IP issues and never corrected so ED didn’t pay them. RAZBAM is probably going to abandon their products and ED is going to not provide refunds , credit or a discount. That is terrible customer service.
Hi, we have to wait and see for now, until the dispute is resolved we wont be able to give any more information. It is frustrating for sure but these things do take time. Best regards - Bignewy
@BIGNEWY whatever the outcome, I sincerely hope the support for the existing modules continues somehow
@@teggy689 I hope so to, they are great fun to fly.
@@BIGNEWY why do you not take the Razbam products off the E-Store if they are going to slowly lose support? That seems highly unethical
Well, unfortunately, you don't know what you're talking about. You can submit a support ticket on standalone through your ED account for a refund on the strike Eagle with store credit to ED However, in this case, ED did nothing wrong. Like an eager fish, you bite the first bait that comes out in the public, which was the payment issue. It's business and maybe you'll understand when the news comes out if we get the full release. But I'll tell you in my upcoming video why I said "goodbye" to RAZBAM. ~Juice
Well, with the announcement of the F-35 to DCS, it is very clear to where DCS is moving: forward. We are definitively not the main public of DCS. So, we will have this "Microsoft Flight Simulator-ization" of DCS, with many different aircraft with many different levels of fidelity. Is it good or bad? only time will tell.
Looking forward to your video on the new zoomer gangnam style module in the works! F-35... Who needs accuracy and realism!
ED may be gravitating toward modern, but, there is a lot of 3rd party development is going towards cold war. Except for the eurofighter and the C-130, every modules in the making is cold war or ww2 (if I'm not wrong).
It is an interesting method of predicting the future. However, making the world more immersive doesn't mean ED wants to stay shallow. ED has to make the world beautiful and authentic before moving on to the deeper sim level.
well said
This aged well
Fucking F-35...
Id love for them to spend some more time on graphics optimization.
Im 21 and kinda new to dcs ive been around the block tho. and i love classic aircraft ww2 is my thing im sad they havent put more into ww2 as more new player are coming to dcs
Thank you for your feedback Iain, I will share it with the team. Kind regards - Scott / bignewy
Thanks, I see that Nick has had a look. I appreciate you taking the time to let me know you had seen it.
It looks like the community and third party scene will need to flesh out the cold war era themselves.
That's my guess as well.
Is there any update as to what will happen to F15E if ED and Razbam go their separate ways? Would the module die? Could ED buy the rights to continue developing it?
I really want to get it but this issue has been going on for way too long, and I'm contemplating buying it now and hope for the best while enjoying it while its still working and then refund it later for store credit and buy another plane I've been wanting like the Phantom. Any clue as to likelihood of outcome or if this module is even working properly at the time?
"Wings over Vietnam" was 20 years ago created by one man.
A voice of reason in the wilderness…..
It sounds, by what you are saying here, that it will be up to the third party developers to provide the maps and aircraft for WW2, Korea and Vietnam, and that ED will eventually produce a map for the Ukraine conflict.
First, IMHO, DCS has never been better. With that outta the way...
Why would a person even choose DCS if what they _really_ like - want - is a 'lite' flight sim? There's nothing wrong with game boxes, playing a flight game on your phone, or something like War Thunder.
Seems they are catering to those that want all the bells & whistles...but not really.
I've narrowed it down to the term: "Hi-fidelity, Instant Action" (in both SP an d MP). That's where the locus seems to be moving towards.
From a biz standpoint it makes sense to, yes: dumb things down - make it easy - to enlarge the customer base. Understood. You have to make money.
Just don't forget:
1) those that are here because of the depth and details
2) those that prefer OFF line - it feels like Single Player is being forgotten about (for some time now). Yes, you can _try_ to find a 'clan' to join but who has the time for cyclic auditions?
And a good rant should always provide possible solutions. In no particular order:
1) Fix the AI (some of it is better than people give it credit for, but there are glaring omissions too). This works for MP also There are a lot of PVE servers out there. And obviously for SP
2) Performance. For no other reason than cost (in PC hardware)
3) Open things up to allow those with the inclination and 'passion' (getting tired of that one) to ADD TO the "world" part of DCS World. Sure, there will be a lot of garbage produced but there will be many that aren't - variety.
The Dynamic Campaign I predict will be found wanting by many (see above) over time and a waste of money spent developing. I hope I'm wrong here, sincerely. I used to crave this but what I really wanted was a world that ALLOWED more authenticity; was not empty; not reliant on the right crowd showing up [on a server] at the right time.
To wit: provide tools, like a persistence API. Cos that's what it [a DC] boils down to. Then ED could step back and watch what gets created. SRS vs the in-sim comms was pointed out to me as a good example: the community invented a wheel, then ED re-invented it.
Lastly, IMHO, DCS has never been better.
If I'm wrong I'm sure someone will tell me.
Thanks for taking the time to respond thoughtfully. I appreciate it. I think you make some valid and thoughtful points.
I feel like Ed is targeting me, I basically have no interest in playing single player, I like the complexity of the aircraft but I'm not hyper milsim about it and I run vr so I need performance improvements. That being said I love cold war aircraft! I flew the teen series stuff for awhile but I got bored of button pushing and I now enjoy the limitations of older aircraft.
Constructive comment: Few videos in, since finding your channel, your voice is very low so it gets drowned out by the aircraft sounds in the back. Just a suggestion, but maybe turn your voice up some in the mix. Appreciate the commentary. Cheers!
Thanks for the tips!
Hey, I'm a regular watcher and enjoy your content but this time the engine noises from the b-roll was overpowering your dialogue too much
Any reasonable customer would want DCS to have core features like functional AI at a minimum. This isn't a "me, me, me" thing. It's a "finish the job you started 15 years ago" thing.
I can't listen to videos with perpetual super loud engine sounds in the background.
I don't get why people do that.
DCS may not go in the direction we (as individuals) might like to see, but that's okay. It's choice to partake or not. ~Juice
Eggggszactly. Respect their decisions and enjoy it for what it is and what it becomes. Contribute constructive when you see major "playability" issues and create a welcoming environment for new players so that the business thrives. Then start asking for stuff ;-)
Considering how ED stated publicly they "can not" (or simply don't want to) model modern redfor planes, then no, I don't believe the strategy is coherent at all.
Especially not in the multiplayer space you mention.
We simply just don't have anything to play against.
In fact I doubt they are thinking this far ahead. Most of the systems in those modern jet's aren't even standardized to a meaningful degree (for example radars).
This actually causes a significant unbalance in the models - some just come with a big disadvantage by better modeling.
If it were a coherent strategy ED would make sure that all aircraft in the same grouping would be at a similar quality.
Unlike you I do fly all modules and across all eras. And no, even flying all of them - in not a single one did I see or feel coherence.
It's basically a bunch of ingredients, but never a full meal, let alone a fully cooked one.
And yes, it would be amazing if there was a strategy. However, with the current pace I'm unsure if even the younger ones will ever see it become a reality.
It's almost sad that we have to admit that even a single aircraft, like the F4U, is almost as long in development as Star Citizen.
That said, yeah, as usual. It's a very split community with different views. Some being realistic, others trying to be optimistic.
In the end things won't progress any faster though, no matter what we do. If it's throwing funds and them, not doing that - it doesn't change anything in terms of development speeds, openness to the community etc.
They seem to be fully aware of the monopoly they have and just don't bother with making a corporate culture happen that would be required in any normal business just to survive if it was in a competitive space.
I truly believe that nothing will ever change that until we have a competing product. I will be pleasantly surprised if I'm wrong, of course. 🙂
I think the only way ED can go is focusing on cold war and creating high fidelity redfor (Soviet) fixed wing aircraft. I am more interested in modern era technology but there's no way they'll ever get the chance to map and recreate a modern Russian jet in DCS. Releasing the full fidelity MiG-29 should be their top priority if they want people to play multiplayer on the new maps and recreate historical events. They keep releasing bluefor modules and it's getting boring. Playing multi is getting boring as well.
Agree! We need redfor jets
Let’s wait for next Thursdays video of ED (2025) and see if they approve of your theory 😂
Well, judge them by what gets done, not by what the marketing department puts out. That's more or less my point - "In God We Trust - All Others Bring Data" (and release notes).
@, ED 2025 and beyond. F-35 full fidelity? As a cold war era kid and ground pounder I couldn’t be less interested. However, I guess another indicator ED is heavily invested in military support contracts and this is driving their strategy and business plan vs B2c ‘gamers’ market. Any other thoughts on this?
I so wish we had an israel map, a mirage iii, a mig 23 (now that Razbam is gone), a mig 25. Then we could have servers and campaigns re-enacting the 6 day and Yom-Kipper wars.
16.2.25 DCS roadmap.
I watched your entire video and I still don't understand what you want out of DCS. Do you want more 20th century post WWII aircraft, assets and missions? Why is this a zero-sum game against multiplayer? Because, I'd be honest in saying that multiplayer feels less polished than the system mastering, mission building, single-player side of DCS. If you want to learn systems and play missions alone in single player, DCS has you covered. DCS multiplayer is a strange, problematic contraption that could certainly be streamlined and improved upon.
Well, to be fair, if I could have everything I wanted it would be a flight sim with a Vietnam map set in 1967-70 and a NW Europe map set in 1980. It would feature some additional cold war a/c (which I won't list). It would have a mission editor that was easy to use so that I could use it as a sandbox to create missions and campaigns so that I could try to "live history" or some version of it. It would have decent modelling of weapons and AI behaviour that accurately recreated the combat environment of the time. Basically I want a combination of DCS, CMO, and Armored Brigade. I don't expect anybody to want to GIVE that to me, but that's my perfect world.
Kind of lost trust in ED overall. Won't be buying any more modules at this point. Valid points made throughout the video.
I agree. I still love playing DCS and enjoy the modules I have but I’ve put a hold on new purchases.
WWII, Cold War, Vietnam. Anything newer is not on my wishlist at all.
you have Thud in? nice
It's the VSN module. It can be flown, but I mostly use it as an AI aircraft for "context". Can't make vietnam videos without a THUD! ;-)
@@Sidekick65 hope it gets ff module in DCS. That plane is an icon. great vid btw.
thx for voice of reason
i came from WT to DCS specifically for online. i like flying against same players, and not against bots. if u took away online, i wouldn't have come here, despite fact that i always wanted to fly on f16 and mig29. and second part - there are many blue modules, up to 2000s, and what does the red side have? almost nothing. on some servers, blue modules play against blue modules. yes, this nonsense of server owners is caused by fact that otherwise red side will simpli lose almost always. and what do we see? blue modules came out again this year, eurofighter is again visible on the logo in X. honestly, Im BORED flying on the f16 against the f15, f18, f14. I fly su27 and mig29, which are inferior to the blue modules (f15e, f16Sbl50, f18 lot20) in modifications that are curentli in game in terms of wapons and systems. that is, tere is no confrontation as such. release of the f15c (full), f16a BL5/10, f-18 early has not been anounced and will not be. so, onlin batles as confrontation in 4th generation are beating by ome, or reduction in their weapons by server owners. and players of blue side do not like this.
Personally, I think ED makes a mistake when they want to go for the gamer you described, the "hop in and fly" kind of player. Those gamers, in general, are not into a game for a long time, and lose interest too fast there are many other games, less realistic ones that cater to their interest already like IL-2, Warthunder etc.
I really think all eras have something worth playing but IMO the hay day of jet air combat ended in the last years of the 20th and early years of the 21st century.
But they don't have to play for long. As long as they buy a few modules before moving on ED will be happy.
It is certainly a direction I don't like to see but I don't matter to ED.
@@yappydawg8985
That is a good point. There is however still a golden rule in marketing about that. As I only know it in German, here is a rough translation: "long time customers are more profitable than new customers"
Nick Grey constantly reiterates that DCS is a Sand Box, and he provides the basics, while you add the imagination and the missions you want to have fun with.
The real issue is, there was several years where not much was happening and now they/we are suffering as they try to catch up. Now, with real competition, they have no time to relax on the laurels. I think they have a ways to catch up yet, but looking back they have come a long way indeed. I am glad ED has pointed out all they have accomplished in 2024 which was not their best year, however, as people fly their modules and enjoy the hard work ED has done, they constantly bad mouth them. Which is ironic, but that's what people do.
I think they were working so hard on things in code and behind the scenes people cannot see as they are getting ready for the future, that is why people are - as always, not happy.
I am looking forward to 2025 and while I started flying in DCS around 14 years ago and going back to Falcon 4 days and earlier, I have to say I feel like a kid in a candy store still to this day. Sometimes I am embarrassing giddy with enjoyment, lol! It's all about expectations and your control of your life. Have fun out there!
Dear Iain, this is utter bs, how would AI know ... Does it magically see into the minds of the actual developers, even RazBam? The title is utter clickbait which is not up to the standards of an otherwise high quality channel ...
Perhaps you should listen to the video. I used a large language model to analyze what ED said in their release notes. The patterns it found indicate what EDs priorities are as demonstrated by their actions. This was a perfect use of modern AI. It gave me insight upon which to build inferences which I could otherwise have done.
AND if a little clickbait is such a bad thing kindly explain why this video is getting viewed a 5x the normal rate.
Thanks for your input but I don't agree with your argument.
@Sidekick65 apologies, will listen in it's entirety