HerrKaputt

Yeah ben, AFAIK that's the planned role for the Ka-52. The optics might be expensive, which explains why the Ka-50 doesn't have them. Perhaps the idea is to have one Ka-52 for every 3-4 Ka-50s? Only the Russian brass knows :)

Yeah... I've been toying with FreeFalcon and although I can recognize a great sim/game hybrid (even if a bit unstable), fixed wing aircraft are just not my cup of tea. Perhaps DCS can get a DC as good as the Falcon series while maintaining the realism of the sim part. If DCS ever gets a dynamic campaign I'll get the Ka-50 module because it seems to be brilliant from my point of view, but a DC is a must for the game to have a long lasting interest (for me). And yeah, a Ka-52 "expansion" module (that would only work if you already own Ka-50 and is cheaper) would be excellent, although I'm still trying to investigate how close the Ka-52 is from being officially adopted.

From my experience in reading the code in EECH and trying to improve the code in their DC (which is from what I've seen inferior to the one in Falcon 4), it's not trivial, but it's certainly not the Herculean task GGTharos has been implying it to be. The biggest problem I've encountered is, as Speed mentioned, not generating the mission itself once you know what mission you want. For that, you start with generating an obviously poorly planned mission (say, you find a group of tanks that must be attacked, so you just find the nearest available Ka-50 or A-10C group, plot a direct course to the target, and voila, mission created), and you build from there (which is, like I said, not trivial, but not Herculean either). The major problem is indeed: OK, you wrecked that group of tanks. Now what? You have to generate new missions that take that into account: perhaps some of your own ground forces can now advance, or perhaps you schedule a new air mission do do damage assessment? This type of decisions isn't easy at all to model (the coding isn't the hardest part, at least not for me -- it's knowing WHAT to code). Not to mention the fact that even in the middle of a mission things can change. As GG and many others have said, it's a matter of priorities: ED's priorities are driven by their military contracts, and their military contracts do NOT include making random mission generators. It's fine that they don't want to do it -- it doesn't mean that it's incredibly hard, others have done it before and using computers that were equivalent to a modern iPad or something.

This is a good idea, but one would have to see whether a two-seat version is actually used for combat (remember that DCS is meant to be as real as an entertainment sim can be). For example, I think (might be wrong) that no F-16 variant with two seats is used for actual missions. While they are at it they can update Black Shark to include the Ka-52 if/when it is adopted into service :D (before someone flames me, I know it's unlikely, just wishful thinking).

Update: So I went back to that store and said that the game wasn't working. He said it must be a problem in my computer, bad keyboard and whatnot. I said I didn't really know what it was, but that either they helped me get it to work or I would want my money back. He said no money back, at best, if the game was indeed faulty, store credit. Then I asked where the CD key was. Suddenly, they decided to open an exception to that rule and I got my money back.

No, there's no CD key anywhere. The guy at the store even said that's why they accepted to sell it as used -- "it doesn't have CD key protection, so it can be used by someone else with no risk" (I asked, because I was wary of buying a used game... it's actually the first time). It might even be the case that the store itself got conned, but I doubt it. EDIT -- meh, LOMAC + FC2 will be about 40 dollars (4 sterling pounds from Amazon UK + 30 dollars digital download from website). Might as well fork out the same money for DCS:BS which is more to my liking anyway. When I can afford it, that is.

Well, it was a bundle, but had two CDs. Supposedly, it was used, hence the low price (I really can't afford to spend ~30 euros on a game right now). But it never asked me for a key, so it's probably fake. I'll go there tomorrow, thanks for the help.

I hope you're joking. I definitely bought it (9.99 euros for LOMAC + FC2), and the CDs look original. However, the store I bought it from could perfectly be selling illegal CDs, I wouldn't be surprised. It doesn't look like a very trustworthy place, but the price ultimately got the best of me. Some questions to help me realize if what I have is original or fake: 1) What I got came in two CDs: one for LOMAC and one for FC2. 2) I never got asked for any kind of CD key, and I don't need to keep any CD in the drive to launch the game, something which surprised me a little (most modern games ask for one or the other). Do these indicate that I got a cracked version? If yes, I'll go there tomorrow and ask for my money back. Should be easy too -- I'll just threaten with denouncing them to the authorities and I'll get the money back very quickly. Unfortunately, seeing as those folks know perfectly well where I live, I probably won't go through with the complaint. Ah, well.

Hello folks, I just got LOFC2, and patched it up to 1.2.1. Looks like a great game, but... How the hell do I take control of my own plane? Whichever mission/campaign/quickstart I choose, all I get is a nice view of an AI-controlled aircraft from the outside. I found that I can select other planes to watch with F2, and have found multiple cameras with F3, F4, etc. Apparently, F1 was supposed to take me into my cockpit, but it does nothing... I'm probably doing one of the most stupid questions on these forums ever, but I'm stuck! What do I need to do to get into a plane and blow stuff up? Thanks! HK

I agree that as a game, DCS will likely sell more if it's based on American aircraft. On the other hand, it'd be more original and would bring something new if they make some modules of Russian fixed wing aircraft. In any case, the next one is a US-based fixed wing, which has some interesting possibilities :)

Hello folks, I might be misinterpreting things, but it seems that some Ka-52 units are now in possession by the Russian Air Force. Quote from Wikipedia: Reference [11] given is: Can someone confirm?

If it's a US fixed-wing aircraft, so much for my personal choice the AH-64 (D preferrable, but A would be OK). In this case I'd like the F-16, as modern a variant as possible.

You're a real buzz killer GG :)

Of course, a military contract will be the prime factor. But we have no knowledge of which contracts ED is involved in...

Haven't you guys ever wondered why all the aircraft in LOFC2 use a "standard flight model" except for the Su-25 which uses an "advanced flight model"? Now that I think of it, I wouldn't be surprised if Su-25 were the next aircraft, especially since it is a similar type of plane as the A-10 (close air support aircraft), so they will probably only need to model the plane and its systems themselves (i.e. no need to develop stuff necessary for multirole and air superiority missions).

But I AM a programmer (for scientific research, not for games). You're not far from the truth ;) making modular programs is very useful in science, and I'd guess in games as well.

Fully agree, now we're on the same page :)

Physical chemistry won't be far from what I do indeed! I do signal processing of brain EEGs and MEGs, but more "signal processing" than "brain". Which basically means lots of coding in MATLAB and C (more MATLAB lately, thank God) :D I can't really refute all your points without me trying DCS: BS and DCS: W. But please don't think this is a lazily thought thing -- just because I won't detail the loads of ideas I have on this on a single post doesn't mean I didn't think about them. Most ideas are inspired on what I think EECH *should* do (some it does, some it doesn't) in its DC, which is why I summarized it like that. Re-engineering the game is a pain. Restarting any coding project is a pain, I've been there! God knows I've had to start from scratch when developing improved versions of my algorithms to analyze brain signals. Sometimes it's necessary if you want to achieve better results. Like I said previously, I have no idea whether a DC is a desirable investment for ED (honestly I'd say neither does anyone outside of ED, but we can speculate), but I do know this: if ED at any time says "man, a DC would be great, but it will be a pain to re-design all that stuff to incorporate it, we should have done it differently at the start", it sucks, but in my professional experience it happens to every coder. I never coded as part of a team but I'd guess it happens to all teams of coders as well. If I had never started code from scratch to improve my programs I'd have half the CV I have now. It's just a fact that when you start developing code for some purpose you can hardly imagine what you'll want a year from now, and by that time your code might have serious design flaws, not because you thought it out poorly, but simply because your priorities have changed. In simpler terms, ED didn't simply say "let's make a simple mission editor for now [black Shark], improve it afterwards [Warthog], and at some point do a full-on dynamic campaign [??]". That'd be poor design on their part. But after seeing the success of DCS and the many requests from the community they might realize that they can tap into the gamer market. Their goals change, and they might re-design the DCS environment because of it. Please don't be offended by me refuting your points, I'm not trying to get into a flame war here!

Sorry Tharos, I don't own DCS: BS and I'm not a beta tester so I can hardly know what is already in each of them. All I know was from asking around in SimHQ.com's forums because I was considering buying DCS:BS. So your last point is correct, I didn't notice A-10 has a dynamic mission generator and I'll have to wait until it's released to see whether it's good enough or not for my style of play. Other points are a bit wrong IMO though. The words "just develop" weren't meant to sound like it would be like an add-on to the current DCS, which is probably not easy to do. I meant that their job would solely be focused on the DC, while current ED elements can continue to work on what they do now. I just meant to pass the idea that developing a DC doesn't necessarily mean stopping or slowing down other directions. But most importantly, why would my proposal be disastrous? A "proper" DC, in its first iteration, could well be just like the one in EECH. Future iterations of it could improve it. It's certainly feasible -- DCS does not use multicore and EECH is ten years old or so, which means there's plenty of computational power left to run the DC along with the main simulator. Design? Requirements? Do like EECH, it's simple enough and it wouldn't be the first project where the design requirements are just "I want the same as that guy". As for the "certain standards", which standards? As mentioned above, by yourself actually, military grade standards are out of the question. DCS:BS and DCS:W are not military grade simulators, they are gimped versions of military simulators that are still excellent for the entertainment market. That leaves us with top-of-the-line entertainment standards, which are certainly feasible and would certainly improve the DCS appeal to the gamer market, which is huge. Even if only some of the gamers would pick up DCS (the ones who like Jane's Longbow, EECH, Falcon 4, etc), that would be a significant market. Only ED knows the cost of developing a DC environment for DCS, but a good DC would easily be worth a couple of programmer salaries for a year (say, 2000€ per month * 12 months * 2 people = 48000€, which is about 1000 game copies). Lack of skilled programmers... well, that may be. I'm a coder myself but I develop scientific code. In my field there's certainly way more skilled programmers than money to pay them. Imperfect markets at their best ;)

Ah, my bad for not searching enough (actually funny that I went to deeper sources like the A-10 Manual instead of a more superficial source like a forum FAQ, but my fault nevertheless). Thanks Viper! I'm a bit worried by the language "hope to be able", but it's probably the best they can do since it's a bad idea to make a full-on promise of the future.

Hi folks, I'd like to ask you something about the Digital Combat Simulator (DCS), and the Ka-50 and A-10 modules already out there. The DCS: Warthog manual says that several parts of the DCS were improved along with the introduction of another aircraft. Does this mean that owners of the Black Shark module who don't buy Warthog also get those improvements, or will they always be stuck with an outdated version of DCS? BTW, sorry if this is a silly question. I don't own DCS: Black Shark so I can't test for myself. Thanks in advance!

I think that the position of the DC in the Eagle Dynamics priority list is very correlated with the relative strength of these markets: 1)Military market, who cares little or not at all about a DC (probably the latter) 2)The hardcore sim-fan market, who cares somewhat about a DC 3)The gamer or gamer/sim hybrid market, who really cares about a DC As mentioned above, the hardcore sim-fan market is small. Therefore, I think that all arguments claiming "sim fans want a realistic aircraft simulation first, DC is just a small bonus" are correct but very bear little relevance. The most important factor is the relation between markets 1 and 3. There are way more clients in market 3, but each client in market 1 pays way more than $40 or $50. On the other hand, if ED already have their hands full with all the military contractors and adding aircraft to DCS one at a time, there's nothing preventing them from hiring a couple more developers to implement a proper DC. ED is not necessarily a rigid body. Currently, their efforts on DCS are hitting markets 1 and 2 but falling short on 3. They can perfectly hire one or two more people to capitalize on a lot of the work already produced (3D models, cockpit models, physics, etc) and just develop a DC environment that runs parallel to the simulation, updating all units positions and orders in real-time. Since it's something aimed mostly at gamers, it doesn't have to be military-grade, it just has to fulfill its purpose of drastically enhancing replayability. ---------------- BTW, some of my own experiences from the DC in EECH: for the most part, the DC serves basically as a mission generator and as an entity ensuring continuity. If you were tasked with a Combat Air Patrol around an advanced FARP, and in the mean time detected a column of enemy armor, you can destroy it and it will be reflected on the future of the campaign, because other armor columns will be diverted to fill the gap, etc. The real gem in a DC is those few times where real surprises happen. I've had examples: where I was flying an AH-1Z armed only with Hellfires and the cannon (mission was Close Air Support) and suddenly spot an enemy flight of Ka-52s heading directly to one of my own bases. I'm outgunned (those Ka-52 had air-to-air missiles), but I have the element of surprise as advantage, and that own base had no defenses of its own. So I decided to attack them. Heavy losses on both sides, but that saved the base because an allied SAM took out the only remaining Ka-52 (my flight was destroyed :D ). This is just an example of how a DC can add surprises that no set of pre-generated missions can add throughout a whole campaign. ED could even take it up a notch by improving this. In reality, I'd inform the brass that I spotted an enemy flight and ask for instructions. This way, the decision of diverting from the CAS mission to engage would not be the pilot's, but the simulator's, which is even cooler :)

No doubt, and my feelings were also an example. I mean, there's stuff on the Ka-50 and A-10C that is different from real life to the entertainment version, so maybe they can develop an entertainment version of the AH-64D still. If not, F-16 FTW :)

I see. Well, who knows? Maybe they will get a contract to make a AH-64D simulator with radar, and then they release a DCS: AH-64D with no radar (which if I understand correctly would be what was originally called AH-64C, but ended up being called AH-64D anyway). In any case, any version of the Apache is good in my book :)

Eddie, can you be more specific? What systems can't be modelled accurately in the Apache Longbow? AFAIK, ED didn't model everything in DCS:BS (I don't own the game, so I can be wrong)...