element1108

This discussion is going around in circles; some get bored quicker than others, i've been flying the shark since 2008 and I'm not bored of it, yet some are bored after a month...what is there left to discuss really? Without insulting each other..nothing. The dev's have already said they're aiming for a more dynamic experience, what's done is done right now, buy it or don't. It is what it is, at best it's the best desktop aircraft simulation experience that is essentially what the military use to train with, at worst it lacks a "living breathing turning world". The problem with military contracts is the military doesn't give a rats ass about "gameplay" or whether or not it's a living breathing world. They want a procedure trainer for the most part and pay big dollars for said trainer. Consumers on the other hand want a full scale global simulation of the most complex and dynamic entity of all...war..and we want it for cheap and we want it now.

The terrain does look a bit more tailored for ground combat or low altitude attack like helicopters. Definitely has an ARMA feel to it, which doesn't bode will for flight simulation visibility and map size complexity.

I haven't been happy with the IRIS planes in FSX. They have some nice frames, but don't really like how they fly.

Totally agree, i have read much of what Oleg has said in interviews and my overall impression is "i like what this guy is trying to accomplish". Sounds like he is a true simmer making a flight sim for simmers. I really hope the weather generator works well for them and of course the on going dynamic campaign. LOVE the fact the player can't shift the course of the war by himself either. I've read much content on the battle of britain and WWII aviation in general and you are definitely a single part of a much, much bigger machine. Survival ultimately was the goal for these pilots, to win the war always came second.

It's a good lucrative path to follow, LOADS of money up front over testing the consumer market. I love military contracts, seems like the consumer sim market has benefited a few times from them. :joystick: Looks cool, feels as though we won't see anything from them ... for a LONG time if ever. New prospects are always nice, good find Asparagin.

The mind will interpret almost anything and everything when it doesn't have the answers...look at religion...........................ops I WENT there... JK please dont' hang me. It's fun to look for clue's and hidden meanings into things...isn't it? Passes the time and gives semi answers to possibilities. Bottom line...the nature of our species DOES NOT LIKE the unknown. We will do anything to fill that void...nothing is worse than something. Just look at "The Never Ending Story" (which did end by the way) ... the "NOTHING" was the BIG MEAN villain. "THE NOTHING....THE NOOOOOTHINNNNNNG". Okay I need :helpsmilie: forgive me, this is a VERY VERY VERY VERY VERY important week for me and I'm getting all my forum time out now :pilotfly:. It would be "INTERESTING" if ED could give us a list of a 5 possible aircrafts... and we could duke it out for which one we THINK it is. THAT would be cool. ;)

Admit it you were just being MEAN ;) lol yeah I know what you're saying mate don't worry. F-15E would be sweet candy apple pie in my eyes ;).

It would be fun, but might be tough for majority of the consumer market to find/trust/fly with a dedicated 2nd person. Some of us have buddies who fly with us, some don't. I don't unfortunately, none of my friends are into flight sims at ALL...(lamers) lol. Janes isn't DCS either so because Jane's did it in their version of the F-15 don't expect that to be up to ED standards ;). BUT HELL yes, it would be fun and they may be able to TOTALLY do it. It's just not safe to assume Jane's did it their way means ED will do it for DCS series :)

I do agree with you, but be fair, there is ALWAYS time for guns....ALWAYS. TAK TAK TAK TAK TAK TAK:joystick:

I'm sure SOW will be more than IL-2...much detail seems to have been worked into the sim, I'm hoping oleg does for WWII what Rise of Flight did for WWI and DCS have done for MW2...lol I mean modern war ;). Back on topic :pilotfly:

It's tough to model every detail though when you have multiple aircrafts upon release. Spits/hurri's, 109's, 110's and one or two bombers on there as well. Requires way more resources. Hopefully there is a simplified version of the startup, mixture, mag switches, contact etc. You're right though, it won't be done to the extent of DCS, but I have confidence it will be much more than iL-2 series.

Oleg's Storm of War Battle of Britain is set to give the WWII era of air combat a SIMILAR type of treatment DCS is given us with modern day aviation so you might be better to wait for that release than hopefully seeing it in DCS. I am REALLY looking forward to that title because WWII air combat is of particular interest to me (I EFFING LOVE IT). I think having the military contract aspect of the whole ED series gives it a real CHARM of reality and a dose of authenticity. Some may find it limiting (what aircrafts come next etc), but in terms of study sim it's as good as you can get. :thumbup:

It's not for sure the next plane will be F16, that's an individual's estimation based on his own logic derivative ;). It is not yet known to the public what the next module will be.

Sounds like fun mate, thanks! +1 for the "instrumental" challenge :pilotfly:

I don't think there's any room for WWII aircraft in the DCS series...might screw up multiplayer compatibility a bit heheh ;) A2A has a great B17 model, with accusim which makes the experience that much better. http://www.a2asimulations.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=29&t=21385

WIN XP through bootcamp, but that will change to WIN 7 through bootcamp when I get the new rig. Installing vista was never really worth it and wanted to be sure WIN 7 was a true improvement.

^^^ I can't respond on development costs etc, but actions speak louder than words. Obviously the dynamic campaign would be great, but seeing as ED hasn't supplied one as of yet probably means there are some complications or areas inside development that aren't "ready yet". The meticulous details the series has given us with regards to avionics and FM but no "dynamic campaign" leads me to believe there is a VERY good reason why they don't have one yet. I don't know the reason, I don't care really...but there IS a reason. Seeing the comments from various members of the ED team I get a good sense of it, and no assuming because TAW and Falcon AF had one means it should be "easy". Those are totally different simulations with different engine, AI etc. I'm not sure if you're "threatening" or not, but by you saying you're not going to buy another module until a dynamic campaign comes out will not get you a dynamic campaign sooner. If anything you will miss out on what is so far one of the best desktop combat simulations packages available. This is of course just MY opinion on the matter, but if you're going to compare technical elements of a video game to "ART" I'd have to say DCS series thus far is a masterpiece. But just like anything ART, not everyone will agree :P.

Interesting little insight on the development of Jet Thunder; Dante: This is an interesting question that affects directly our experience. Our lead programmer and cofounder, Steven, has worked for 3 years for THQ in a console product in the same style as Tom Clancy's HAWX. It requires a lot of investment (financial) to develop and promote a product like this; they don't have FM, DM, campaigns or anything, but they must have absolutely killer, cutting edge graphics, amazing CG cut-scenes with real actor or high-quality computer generated actors, excellent voiceovers (sometimes by well-known voice artists or even actors/celebrities), lots and lots of modern, real world vehicles and aircraft with licensing rights to pay for, expensive original orchestrated soundtrack, SDKs and licenses for every gaming platform out there, it's basically a Hollywood production costing quite like it with a very large staff backing it. Basically, when I knocked in the doors of some publishers to offer Jet Thunder (JT), they suggested to transform it into a HAWX-clone so they can sell it more easily and in much higher quantities. We can't turn Jet Thunder into HAWX — a flight sim for PC and an arcade flight action game for consoles are two completely different products, they have nothing in common except airplanes in it. It would be easier and faster to make a parallel product under a completely different codebase. Summing up, we didn't pursue that market because it feels like (in an analogy to film industry) doing an Avatar-type multi-million blockbuster before you do your indie-intellectual movie oriented to a specific niche. It is less risky to be running with much lower costs with a product aimed for a specific niche (this is a very important hint for this business!). We would had sunk a couple millions in a risky HAWX clone, thankfully we didn't. Console blockbuster territory *is* risky. The game that Steven worked for THQ, "Stormbirds", ended-up cancelled, because it was too risky and the cost to promote and release was nearing what was spent on developing it so they thought it was better to just pull the plug on it than to spend more.

SIMHQ: From Thunderworks news dated 1 Jan 2011: Happy New Year Everyone! Are the wishes of Aerosoft and Thunderworks. We have accomplished a lot in 2010. For example, in the 2 to 3 months following our signing with Aerosoft, we added the following features: - Clickable cockpits with animated switches - Several HUD modes for the Harrier, including Reversionary mode - Gunsight with depression settings, set wingspan, range etc - New clouds method, able to render cloud formations at up to 120km distance with very little overhead (previous method was limited by sector size, causing severe pop up artifacts, and so was replaced) - Cockpit self-shadows - Time of day 24hrs simulation (displaying constellations at night, etc) - New and improved models for several types of Anti-Aircraft units used in the 1982 conflict - New AI helicopters ...and more; effectively setting JT firmly in the track of being a realistic sim focused in a specific public (true flight simmers of course!)

This article had a bunch of interesting bits that can be applied to this thread for consideration: http://www.simhq.com/_commentary/all_106a.html Long read, but a good read..."THE FUTURE OF SIMULATIONS" with a bunch of developers who answer questions (developers from STORM OF WAR, JET THUNDER, RISE OF FLIGHT etc). One answer caught my attention the most; DANTE from JET THUNDER: Dante: This is an interesting question that affects directly our experience. Our lead programmer and cofounder, Steven, has worked for 3 years for THQ in a console product in the same style as Tom Clancy's HAWX. It requires a lot of investment (financial) to develop and promote a product like this; they don't have FM, DM, campaigns or anything, but they must have absolutely killer, cutting edge graphics, amazing CG cut-scenes with real actor or high-quality computer generated actors, excellent voiceovers (sometimes by well-known voice artists or even actors/celebrities), lots and lots of modern, real world vehicles and aircraft with licensing rights to pay for, expensive original orchestrated soundtrack, SDKs and licenses for every gaming platform out there, it's basically a Hollywood production costing quite like it with a very large staff backing it. Basically, when I knocked in the doors of some publishers to offer Jet Thunder (JT), they suggested to transform it into a HAWX-clone so they can sell it more easily and in much higher quantities. We can't turn Jet Thunder into HAWX — a flight sim for PC and an arcade flight action game for consoles are two completely different products, they have nothing in common except airplanes in it. It would be easier and faster to make a parallel product under a completely different codebase. Summing up, we didn't pursue that market because it feels like (in an analogy to film industry) doing an Avatar-type multi-million blockbuster before you do your indie-intellectual movie oriented to a specific niche. It is less risky to be running with much lower costs with a product aimed for a specific niche (this is a very important hint for this business!). We would had sunk a couple millions in a risky HAWX clone, thankfully we didn't. Console blockbuster territory *is* risky. The game that Steven worked for THQ, "Stormbirds", ended-up cancelled, because it was too risky and the cost to promote and release was nearing what was spent on developing it so they thought it was better to just pull the plug on it than to spend more. Lots of questions often posed or argued by the community here and abroad are answered from the development side of things in this Q and A. I particularly like this one from OLEG because I've noticed the demands and complaints the most ludacris over on the 1C forums: QUESTION: 20mm: What do you think today's simulation fans want (besides everything). Is it mostly gameplay, eye-candy, a dynamic campaign, a solid multiplayer, better-and-better AI, or some new element? Oleg: I would say everything anyway! And when we give more and more, making 3D more and more close to a realistic image they never stop their complaints. Comments like, “This screw is not on the right place or this curl of the cloud doesn’t look good”. At the same time a few users would like too much realistic control of aircraft using all the devices like in real life. These are in minority. So there always should be the right calculated balance between realism and usability for a casual player, or we will be not able to sell the new product well and cover our expenses.

QUOTE=Callsign.Vega;1068618]Late beta's are virtually the release product. If you think that DCS:A-10C's performance is going to skyrocket from Beta 4 to release you are kidding yourself. :D We aren't really sure what level beta we're in, it may be 4 of 9, it may be 4 of 6...I don't think anybody is fooling themselves when thinking the beta version is still a WIP and the end product will have improved performance. (The developers have said so themselves). Comparing an arcade air action game to a beta (I don't care what version) high fidelity simulation is pointless. If you don't understand what ED does and prop up the HAWX 2 developers than there's no point debating because you obviously don't fully understand what ED does in it's sims. The photo of the A-10C taking off has mountains in the background that are probably 40-50 kms away. The HAWX 2 mountain shot has another peak that's probably 5 km's away and it's already fading into the weak draw distance. The F-35 model looks like a cheap CG model next to the photo realistic terrain as well. Multithreading has been discussed and apparently it's being looked into...but until then we'll have to deal with it, DCS won't look like HAWX 2 the same way HAWX 2 will NEVER play like DCS (by that I mean become a pc study simulation). Wouldn't comparing Rise of Flight and DCS be more of a suitable comparison?

Hawx also doesn't have seasons, dynamic lighting, large map sizes, any simulation elements at all.

Not sure how many of you guys paid any attention to LA back in their prime in the early to mid 90's, but I have noticed (and it's not really new) a bunch of their classic Dark Forces games available on STEAM. Super cool for nostalgia, but it begs the question WHERE IS the XWING/TIE FIGHTER series?? These games are not only great for nostaliga, but they were the highlight of space combat simulation games back in the day. (I'm aware the physics of these games did not represent true space "flight"...they were a WWII type of dogfight set in space...which is bad ass in my opinion). ;) Curious to know if STEAM will release it and if not WHY they haven't as of yet. Are they holding off for a new annoucement, or are there legal issues perhaps with Laurance Holland and Totally Games who were involved with the development? Impossible to answer obviously, but curious to know what some of you think.

Might want to wait until the final release to judge on ground physics, they're still a WIP. If you noticed it in FC but haven't in A-10C it's probably a matter of time before it makes it into it. Of course this is just an assumption, but I would say it's safe to assume damage model and other fine details haven't yet been fully implemented. I personally have found it extremely satisfying landing the A-10C, I haven't had too many botched landings to really have properly tested how the A-10C reacts to running off the runway. In FC 2 if you taxi the 25T off runway you're pretty much stuck, pretty sure that will make it into the A-10C version once it's complete. Short answer, perhaps wait until final release and see if that fixes any issues you're having.

Happy Holidays guys! all the best