Rick50

My guess is: MARKETING!!!!! To rotorfans all over the world, it's a CH-47 Chinook... the rest is just details! To sell something, getting people to recognise what it is is a HUGE step. And if a sim product doesn't sell well, it doesn't sell at all. I'm guessing simulations aren't making anyone rich. Some will do ok, one or two might make a boat of money, but most will do so for the love of the aircraft and simulations. Much easier to make HUUUUUUGE money getting lucky being the next super viral "hangry birbs" or "candi crush".

Hmm, an interesting choice for Cold War bombers!! Used by two major airforces for very long time, and used a lot during the Vietnam war: English Electric Canberra https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_Electric_Canberra Martin B-57 Canberra https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_B-57_Canberra

I'm not wanting to suggest that there's a gigantic invading army of "but why can't %50 off?!?" complainers! Rather that I occasionally see such a comment, more to the tune of "I hope the Strike Eagle and the Phantom don't come out at the same time, I can't afford both", to which, I'm simpathetic to their plight of not having enough disposable income, but it inevitably makes me wonder "...but... but you have a HOTAS and a good GPU... but can't afford two modules in the same month?!?" Followed by "why don't they save up $10/month during months that they don't buy modules, then when that A-maZing module comes, you can buy it 'cash' no borrowing?" But I guess even $10-20 a month of saving up, is probably too much money for disposable income that isn't for the wife or kids, for those who are maybe less well off, in a country that has poor monetary exchange rates. Even the difference in price costs between Canada and the USA sometimes has us scratching our heads in visible confusion... go watch a Canadian visitor wander into a rural American Walmart, standing there slack-jawed at the retail prices... It must be a much more extreme version of that for some of our brothers and sisters in other regions of the world, like South America, or Africa, for instance. I remember a long time ago, someone from Brazil told me that to buy a top end gaming video card (a GPU before they were called GPU's) was almost like buying gold, (maybe around 2003 or so?). He could afford it... but he was making more money than 95% of Brazilian citizens at the time, I think he was in São Paulo finance industry maybe?

Of course people have the right to complain. Many exercise their rights to complain about a great many things on the regular, myself included! And yes, I DIDN'T "GET IT". Which is EXACTLY why I asked the original post/question in the first place: to help me feel "other people's shoes", and gain some understanding directly from people actually in the situation. I reached out, to understand. Sometimes it's not easy to put oneself in others' shoes when you don't understand their reality, don't understand the details of "why". Sometimes it needs more than just empathy, it needs actual descriptions from those other points of view. At least I'm trying, instead of dismissing. Keep in mind, there was a time, when I couldn't afford anything like this. So someone gave me a nice used computer that had quite a bit of power. Problem was, I couldn't afford a solid gaming vid card (before GPU's started being called GPU's). And for a time I flew some Migs and Sturmovics and other birds in a frozen land... got the software for maybe 80% off of original price. Had to scrape and scrape money to get a very inexpensive stick, a Wingman ? didn't work well, returned it and got a Cyborg instead. Very inexpensive, but tough for me to justify spending. Things are very different for me today.

Ok, something's been annoying me for a while. Doesn't come up every day, but every now and then I see a post that goes something like: "I hope they spread out the release dates, and have a module sale early, because I can't afford to buy module A and module Y at the same time." Now... I get that for a great many people, the price of a product might be too high for someone at times in their lives. But the part I don't get is, a gaming rig is not cheap. nor are good solid GPU's. And even basic flight stick is anywhere from the price of a full module at release, to a huge investment for a quality HOTAS with great pedals, outstripping even a top end new gaming rig. And then you feel the need to upgrade your GPU, maybe add some more RAM. It's an expensive hobby, no doubt. But then I hear people complaining about this or that module being "too expensive", or "why only 20% off the sale?" What.the.HECK.?!? I get that times are tough, and things are sometimes not affordable. But... of all the items we buy for experiencing DCS, aren't the modules themselves, EVEN AT FULL PRICE, the most inexpensive piece of the DCS budget ?? Ok, ok, yes, if you buy EVERY single module, then yea, the total module cost for every aircraft, every warbird, every rotorbird, every "Teen fighter", add them all up, that's a LOT of serious coin. But then, those who are on a real tight budget, are you actually buying EVERY module? is a 20% off sale still unaffordable to you? Or am I misreading the situation: gaming rig is 7 years old, GPU 4 years old, don't have a full HOTAS but making do with a 7 year old T.16000m and saving up for a pair of used rudders? All modules that you DO have, and not that many in total, were bought on %50 sales? Look, I'm not trying to criticise, few of us can have unlimited funds for a hobby. I'm just trying to better understand the situation of the truly budget-minded DCS pilots, perhaps in the hopes of greater understanding for the industry, and the community as well. So if you are in this kind of situation, and you wish to share, then please share as much, or as little, as you are comfortable! Things to share might include: your current specs, when you last upgraded hardware, a rough idea of modules and maps you bought, a rough idea of your money situation, how you manage to enjoy the DCS hobby despite limitations, how has your hobby strategy changed over time? In general it's good to share, especially if it helps gain understanding among others! Edit: for myself, I got GPU's used from friends, and I also buy HOTAS used for cash.

Heatblur is not in the "vaporware business". They've proven themselves over and over and over again to make outstanding modules that work very well, fix bugs quickly, and produce amazing and beautify products for us to enjoy. They are the ones with the tough part: making amazing products, while we have the easy job of saving up and waiting until it's available! \ Also, True Grit seems to be ambitious, yet also seems to have gotten all sorts of connections and resources that are almost bordering on "magical", a great partner to make this complex project have a high probability of success. I don't know what it's like in that industry, but I imagine that fixing some "bugs" might be a bit of a nightmare for the coders and devs to get done. I myself have some impatience for this product... I REALLY need to be flying this amazing jet through the mountains of Norway, doing SEAD strikes... while listening to early 90's ambient music, DID style!! Indeed that sim game was my first combat flight sim, and I almost didn't buy it, thinking it would be too complex. And once installed, it WAS too complex for me. Just flew in circles until I crashed, the first week. But I did enjoy the flying bit. And then I started to read the manual more, bit by bit. Did the training exercises over and over. Asked questions from a buddy that knew some things about air combat that I was unaware of. By month 3 I was flying full mission profiles in the campaign... I really hope Orbx can deliver when HB gives us the "Phoon", and that maybe Orbx can possibly eventually make/ include Norway/Sweden in a future map to bolt onto the Kola map!!!! But I too need to have patience!

No thanks, I want to see screenshots of the EuroPhoon when they arrive!

DashTrueGrit started this thread more than three years ago: "Posted April 26, 2020"

Perhaps. But a quick look at actual first announcements, compared with actual release dates, and those not yet even released suggest that it may not be "nonsense" at all. Add to that the Phantom being finished before they really start heavy work on the Euro, that could mean 6 months from now all by itself. Maybe.mSure, it might be finished before my guess. Maybe. BTW: all more than 3 years: Corsair, uncertain of exact project start as a simple search didn't offer clear indications. But great screenshots of Corsair development were shown in December 2017: Kiowa OH-58D Announcement , December 11, 2019, so 3.5 years now Hornet, I think in another thread I calculated 5 years Strike Eagle, a very long time. Some say they made a semi-official announcement more than a decade before it appeared. I don't know how accurate that information is, I kinda doubt they were working full steam for all that time, and don't know when they DID make it a full-progress project... but it's been certainly 3 years or more. I'm guessing the complexity of systems in the Euro is on par with the Hornet and Strike Eagle, yet more complex than the Kiowa or Corsair. Certainly an additional layer of complexity is that the Eurofighter has many weapons unique to it, not seen in any other DCS module before. ASRAAM, Meteor, Storm Shadow, Brimstone, ALARM and probably others I'm forgetting or don't know about. That all requires sourcing of data, research the data, crunch it into data relevant for DCS use, and then coding it all. For each of those missiles. Then there is the tactical datalink systems. Heat will need to figure that out too.

Oops!! I've no idea of the extra grip functions. Seen similar on other helos though, the fancier Black Hawks, some SAR birds, on a few these have on off switches for search lights, pointing controls for same and for FLIR sensor ball aiming, maybe invert hot/cold image and so on. But on modern Chinooks specificaly, dunno!

Usually the glass cockpit displays, each panel can be switched to another with just the press of a button. Fancier ones can display some amazing stuff, lots of options for pilots to change things on the fly, to handle changing tasks and workloads. I'll bet there are programmable modes, one for preflight and takeoff, another for advanced low level cruise navigation, yet another for approaching the LZ, or a hot target, yet another for SAM detection and defence along with air threats like interceptors. I think the picture possibly represents a commonly used configuration in military glass cockpits, the outboard have basic flight displays, but the inboard two displays have different information but both flight crew can easily see the other's display... more information visible to both pilots. Went flying with a coworker a few years ago, his Vans Aircraft homebuild had a glass cockpit that had my jaw drop to the floor! The display options, and the information itself were more advanced than what you normally see on declassified displays for the Raptor and Lightning, or on modern Boeings. I'd imagine the new stealthy planes have some amazing displays for those with security clearances!

Sure, in "corporate world", I'd be suspecting the same thing. But I'm guessing Heatblur and True Grit aren't really "corporate world" companies. Just a hunch. Sure, they probably are technically "corporations" meaning the legal structure meaning, so that the people, the developers, the artists and coders, the researchers and company owners, don't get completely financially WIPED OUT the first time they encounter an inevitable legal challenge to their existence. But I'm doubting they have an "accountant team", a "legal team", an "HR team", "sales and marketing team" and the like. They likely have one person doing bookkeeping and find SME's, another does coding and will send out requests for experienced coders to help with "this" and "that", a third an artist will make it look amazing and vet people's resumes and portfolio of previous works. I've no idea if they have a "workplace" like a small few offices that people go to... it might be that Bob lives in Virginia, and works 8 hours an afternoon/evening on the Euro, and 6 hours during the morning doing book keeping for other companies as his "day job". Maybe Gregory puts in a few hours in the early morning, before going to university in Heidelberg, Germany... Now, all that said, your estimate of 2 years or more, I agree with completely. I believe it'll take that much time to sort though the systems complexity, what things are secret and can't be shared (and how to present an alternative to the module buyers without pissing anyone off!!!). I'd be surprised to see Typhoon in the ED store before September 2026, I figure on 3 years from now.

I have found sometimes, when things become complex, that you realise that this can't happen before that, but for that to start, the other thing needs to be well on it's way. How far on it's way? Uncertain. How to get it "well on it's way"? Well, requires X W Y Z and Omega. Oh, great, Y and Z and C are gonna be easy, but Omega is gonna be tough. And maybe time consuming. Ok so now James in accounting wants you to explain it to him, and tell him what date it'll all be completed. But it's too complicated to tell him, and if you do, he'll make too many wrong assumptions about how long these things will take. Telling will be damned if you do, damned if you don't. But... the nosy onlookers from the window... that's us. Do we get told all the details? No. Why would they tell us? What's the upside for them to tell us all the details? There's downsides to telling us. Maybe you are right, maybe the Chinook before Kiowa. Maybe no Kiowa. Maybe Kiowa in future. Uncertainty about simulation products, be it combat or civilian, is THE constant. If you have trouble with uncertainty, then maybe this isn't the hobby for you. Maybe try other genres: AAA shooters, racing GT sims, fantasy RPG's, deck of cards, billiards, throw a basketball around, take up cross-country skiing or bicycling . Maybe come back to DCS in 3 years, by then we''ll probably have Kiowas and Bo105's, Chinooks, Thuds Skyraiders, Huns and Typhoons, Intruders Kfir's and Mirage III's, maybe even Hercules will be be doing para-drops! One thing you can take to the bank: the devs want to finish it and sell it sooner than you want to fly it. They want to eventually get some kind of return on all those extra thousands of hour spent on ONE aircraft, and not even get to even enjoy playing it. Because at this point "playing" is probably just testing and debugging, tedious comms with SME's about how this or that doesn't match their memories of the real thing.

Sorry to hear this. Best of luck to you.

I was informed that we are to attempt no landing there... Besides, they told us to use in peace too... so not much use for DCS !! Then again, "use them together" implies multiplayer use, so...

Just look back five years and consider how few helis were around at that time... we've seen great expansion into helo world!! I have no doubt there will be Blackhawks, and probably sooner than later. Cobras are IMO a certainty it's only a matter of time. Good probability of Pumas I think, since so many countries use them for long time. We'll probably get one or several variants of the Hughes killer egg, OH-6, MH-6, 500 Defender... though I'm doubful we'll get all variants. Fragger, thanks for the update!!

Well, let's face it, DCS is handling lots of things that most engines don't need to do. On the other hand, I'd expect that there probably will need to be upgrades or even total re-writes to achieve what we want in future! Huge volumes of trees and foliage in the hundreds of billions would only be one thing. More realism and "granularity" in radar simulation and limitations A more comprehensive electronic warfare "system", for more realism in more modern conflicts AI that is more competent, and less "limited" without player orders and intervention. AI with more realism in flight dynamics, fuel behaviours (not stupidly running out of fuel instead of RTB'ing at a reasonable fuel level) and such. I'll leave the details to those who are closer to the issues. Integrated air defence with good AI running the systems, being a true opponent capable of strategy/tactics Persistent and dynamic campaigns, run both by human and AI, humans giving guidance to AI for coverage when the human goes offline, Improved realism in missile behaviours, be it aerodynamic behaviour and limitations, seeker behaviours, We aren't going to find any of that in other companies Commercial Off The Shelf solutions, it'd have to be done in-house, I would think. But some solutions could be bought/licenced for specific items, like perhaps the foliage rendering system from Unreal might be of use to integrate into DCS 3.0 or 4.0 or whatever.

That's true... it might indeed require a new DCS engine. Maybe. Or heavy investment in the existing one to have the similar benefits that Unreal5 has for high vegetation rendering, vegetation placement through AI perhaps, Ultimately, this isn't like making another desert map. This is maybe more complex, more like developing the Hornet module.

I think there was a mixture of: rumours, hard factual statements, and speculation based more on wants and projection than reality. I think some people wanting it to appear fast, blended the rumours and speculation together and concluded things that were going to disappoint themselves later. Some people only hear what they WANT TO HEAR. "...a dev team was going to create the VN map" I believe that's an accurate statement. But what's missing from the statement? There's no timeline. Could be started this year, could be started in 2030, completed and playable in game in 2034. Nor is any official statements from a dev team included. The "new" standard is once dev is proven likely to be successful to ED's satisfaction, approvals are granted, and then a quick PR announcement maybe with video or screenshots, are used to tell the public of what's being started, and also to tell other devs that this project is being started so they don't duplicate efforts. None of that has occurred, so I'm assuming that while one or more teams are thinking and planning for a VN map, none have poured big money or allocated work hours to it yet. I think it's doable, to our levels of satisfaction. But I think it won't be ready for us customers to fly until at LEAST 2027 at earliest, instead 2030 is more likely. The downside is the wait. The upside is our hardware will be much more capable of rendering it with high frames!

Good idea!

Huh? Is this real texture from that map, or a joke/photoshop? If there's a Mirage III and Dagger on the way... then that's just COOL!!!

Good point: all bets are off once the lawyers get involved!!

Well... this DCS has many skilled mod makers, many official dev coders, and many internal employees. I suspect that someone might enable DCS to continue on without the company. At least until hardware no longer supported the code. Updating core engine for new hardware and new drivers... dunno, seems unlikely, but stranger things have occurred. It's possible the company might treat it as "abandonware", meaning let people continue to use it, just no more efforts by the defunct company to keep it updated. Another consideration is that if the company fell on hard times, it may get bought. Perhaps by a giant evil game publisher. Perhaps by a good game publisher. Or perhaps by a rich individual who can afford to buy it and just let it continue! No, I don't have that kind of money, nor am I aware of anyone like that. But I do remember that the star of a TV comedy show told an interviewer that he was really into DCS for a couple of years and had put a lot of money into it. No, he wouldn't have enough to buy DCS/ED either, but someone a bit like him, someone with mountains of money, totally anonymous as being that rich, might just say "yea, X millions? Sure I'll buy it, keep the doors open, keep the devs working". It's not "highly probable", but I do think it's maybe moderately "possible". Real world example: "The Expanse" was a great scifi TV show, made after a great book series. One studio made 3 seasons and abruptly decided they weren't gonna finish it, just abandon. Not enough profit or something, cable TV execs have strange alien thought process sometimes. Before it became a problem, Bezos sent his streaming people to try and secure the show to finish the series and did... and the transition was seamless, many might have been unaware of a change in paymasters! It's also possible that the independent devs might band together and buy the company or DCS product. Or it could be bought by the giant flight guys over in Redmond Washington... and merge the two possibly?

More drama than a Jane Austin movie! ... It'll get here when it's ready, tested tested and tested some more. Use this and waiting for other DCS modules, to learn about patience, seemingly a lost art these days.

I'm not convinced of that. Just because "many" would leak, isn't proof that "all" will leak. Some people and groups are able to maintain very high opsec. Just because they aren't showing, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Some are just quiet.