Rick50

Could be... And that would be very impressive!

Indeed... you could be onto something...

Look deep into these forums, you will see that almost all modules and maps take years to make. A few simulators in the past even took a DECADE to complete...and even then took a couple years of fixes, patches and upgrayed to make into enjoyable products. So I don't see either the Phantom or Eurodart as being "late" at all, but rather as promising projects by great teams with lots of resources that most sim devs would dream of. I just look forward to the day they announce they are available to download and with only a modest number of minor bugs that will get ironed out quickly! "Rushing" development just gives a buggy mess no one can fix or enjoy: in sim releases, patience is your friend!

You could also introduce your partner to the most basic of flight. Not combat flight, just basic maneuvers like turns, climbing, descending, takeoff. Something simple like the Yak or Christienson. Or maybe a civilian flight. Or using one of the trainers in DCS that you might already have. Never know, she might enjoy simple flight. Two other sims do sailplanes, which is still flight, but is a unique feel for people. When I briefly tried that in sim X, it was a surprise to me how much I enjoyed it, very different from the others! The complexity of modern fighters, like Hornets or even trainers like the L-39, and the complexity of learning to "fight" in the air, might be a huge turnoff... but just letting people take the stick at altitude, in a slow gentle plane, and tutoring them on the basics is a nice easy entry to something they might like to experience once or twice, but also maybe lean into as a hobby .

It's my belief that the Apache was a "special case" that might not be repeated. Meaning, I believe the Apache was ALREADY very deep in development at the time of announcement. Like possibly YEARS of secret development. Just my gut feeling from how it unfolded. Just because a particular aircraft is "simpler" than others, doesn't mean it'll appear much quicker. It's possible that a super complex aircraft like Vipornets gets 10 times as many developers working on it, than a simple warbird.

It's definitely "doable". Been done before, and will soon appear with the WW2 Mariannas map. But... and this is a big butt... will it be practical for all the maps we'd like multiple eras for? Sourcing old air photos may not be easy, fast or cheap for certain areas of the world, maybe even impossible to get, in some cases. Much of the world was not documented to the extent that Western Europe was in the 1940's. At least not outside of mil recon mapping and photography, and I'm betting a lot of photorecon did not get declass even well after the war, despite what some Chair-warriors might have publicly said! Doing the research, finding old maps, sure they are out there, but getting enough of them, ensuring they don't have mistakes and inaccuracies... Getting a map, from announcement to download from the store, takes years at this time and the last while. Getting companies to develop alternate versions, would probably add a minimum of an extra year OR MORE to get the "other era map". That time and effort... might prevent a totally different terrain map from arriving, delaying by a year or more. Also, that extra year of dev time would require additional compensation for the people making the new "era" map. I'm not sure all map devs want to take on a multi-era map, and it might be very risky for sales: splitting existing customers into two or more products, in an already fairly limited market ? Sure, might work here and there, but could spell disaster for another map product. I say all this even though I myself champion a "multi-era Korea map" myself, I figure 3 or 4 eras for Korea sounds about right: the war in the 50's, a 1978 Cold War map, a current day 2023 map with giant sprawling city centers... and I can't recall the other era... maybe around say 1995 like that old Falcon product had? Doable. Costly. Time consuming. Wanted. I think part of the key might be to figure out ways for us, the community, to HELP map developers. For instance, sourcing the historical maps, thousands of historical terrain photos, into bundles that would be available to a dev team. Maybe figuring out ways to improve the software code to more rapidly create the end product (obviously very few could help with that, and might be impossible without access to the tools). Maybe someone who doesn't have the 3d tools for DCS maps, but DOES know how traditional maps are, and knows paint programs well, could perhaps make a properly scaled flat 2d image, with all the buildings, roads, fields, forrests and such, that could help speed along the workflow for the 3d artists on the dev team. Maybe it could be even used as the ground texture that would be overlaid on the terrain mesh, or at least used as a template? I don't know, just thinking outside the box.

I'm very glad for your relationship! Sometimes just being invited to be included goes a long way. https://www.racedepartment.com/ has a lot of discussion and content. Also you could check out Chris Hayes' Youtube channel for ideas and inspiration: https://www.youtube.com/@ChrisHaye He does have some serious hardware setups, and as nice as they are, it's not needed to have all that spendy to have a good time doing a race! But he has nice takes on what constitutes an enjoyable racing experience, and that it often doesn't need 1000hp and thousands of kilos of downforce, sometimes 150 hp in a featherweight spec frame can really get a driver going, when there's zero hardware advantage, it's all down to skills and strategy, outhinking your opponent! I love your choices of cars, clearly you aren't just a flight enthusiast but a true gearhead as well! I don't ever hear anyone IRL mention the 288 GTO or Pantera, cars deserving of sooo much more attention IMO... but that's ok! Grand Prix Legends... amazing what the mod community managed to create for it years later, the sense of speed, lack of grip, an incredible experience!

There are tons of choices for racing/driving simulations and games. Two in particular that appeal to me are: Assetto Corsa: this is... it's kind of the "DCS" of racing. Great realistic driving physics, very much mod friendly, tons of professionally made cars, fairly low cost on Steam. Unlike DCS, there's a LOT of content in official content, and even MASSIVE amount content from free and 3rd party content. Your top 10 favorite cars, whether racing or street, are probably available for you. There's also a very large number and growing of racing tracks, also official and 3rd party, and street circuits, and even "free roam" areas. BeamNG: This started off many years ago as a very basic crash physics simulation... but has continually evolved into a simulator that can be used for a great many things. A lot of "silly driving" events, to be sure, but also serious rally driving on rough terrain, jumps, high speed driving through traffic, realistic terrain/roads that resemble real world locations, and other terrain that have little resemblance to the real world. Wanna try "drifting" with a front drive car? BeamNG. want to do a police chase, either as the police or badguy? BeamNG. Try offroad driving in very rough terrain? BeamNG! Add a rocket engine to a bus and drag race against a proper drag car? BeamNG! 3 wheel micro truck, or 8 wheel military transport truck? Or 400 ton mining dump truck? Jungle race or city race with traffic? All BeamNG and so much more.

Not yet, at least not announced. But ED have unofficially stated recently that in future, when it's physically possible to render such a map at flight sim framerates, they would like to see that happen.

Nice update!! "nextgen core framework" sounds interesting! I can't wait to hear more about that, but I can wait until EA starts, more important to get people burning holes in the skies than this hidden aspect to development!

I didn't think my release date would help, but I tried! I understand the need to ration your money for only a few modules at a time, most of us don't have unlimited money at the best of times. This is where patience and self-discipline about your purchases can be helpful. Save up for the Phantom, then set that money aside for when it DOES release. Don't expect super-discount sales in it's first year, expect to pay full price for a complex module. ORRRR... use the patience to wait for the first big sales, and strike while the price is low! All I know is, I'd bet money that HB would LOVE to give us all a perfect realistic release date and actually release on that date... and I'd bet more money that they KNOW they can't even give a good guess, because they might have a string of successes that speed it all up rapidly, or they might have a very long string of setbacks that end up demoralizing the whole crew... but more realistically they'll have a bit of a slog to go through, with some setbacks and some wonderful successes... and have no idea of a precise date. Revealing brand new cars all happens on precise dates because they want all the auto journalists to take pics and promote the new car/truck endlessly for that whole day... and it's doable because it was ready to display a week, or a month, or a year before they unveiled it. But Elon's "Starship" development has RARELY met any precise date, because as smart as he and the other engineers are, there's too many unquantifiable factors at play, not just performance mysteries while in flight, but also the Byzantine regulatory demands from EPA, FAA, local govts and probably 50 more regulatory agencies who must be made happy. IMO, combat flight simulations developments is more akin to developing "SpaceX Startship" than developing a new "concept car". Not just for Heatblur, but for the whole industry of retail edutainment "combat flight simulations" products. Considering the high efforts needed to produce these products, I think we get amazing value for our dollar even at full price.

I agree it's harder when we don't know. But what if HB can't be certain? I believe HB doesn't really know for sure either, at this point. I bet there's a lot of uncertainty, and many disruptions to timelines. And if they make an announcement that turns out wrong... people will get FAR more upset, than simply grumbling about "silence". So there's no upside to giving a distant "release date", no upside for ED, no upside for HB, and no upside for us drooling fans wanting to install The Phantom... This isn't simply a matter of counting widgets and extrapolating person/hours available. This has a lot of creative solutions to come up with, a lot of artistry, a lot of hard data to somehow convert into a code that replicates old fire controls and radar systems... I'm just saying it's probably impossible to do anything but make occasional guesses. Here: I'll give you a hard release date for the Phantom, and you can hold me to it: Before January 2029 !! If I'm wrong, I'll owe you a beer! Does that make it better?

Are you talking about the new freeware mod by VSN that just recently was released? It seems so, but maybe I'm reading you wrongly. In any case, this thread discussion is about a payware full fidelity Phantom module that is not available yet. In fact we don't yet have a solid date for when it'll be available. In short, this is in Heatblur Simulation's sub-forum. If you look at this video you will see many glimpses of Heat's Phantom gunfighter, the "E" in action:

That's a heck of a burn hole!! I'd be worried about other things lighting up... yikes!! Get on the ground ASAP!

Ok, good news, I guess! Let's hope some rotor-coders can get time to assist!

YES! LOL

I believe that's true, owing to a couple of things: totally permissible airspace (at least after the first two days), the tasking of Warthogs to go hunt SCUD launchers, and with the Aardvark, they could just plink away with LGB's and take out the heaviest Iraqi tanks with modest pricing. At least, that was the impression I got from the air war after action report prepared and distributed by the CIA that I read in Aviation Leak and Spaced Technologicles... a rather famous document, in part because it shaped airforces for decades afterward, probably still does even today!

So for the record, I support F-111 module. And the B-1B and B-52 requests. However. other possibilities could include the TU-22 Backfire, Tupolev Bear, Boeing B-47... The B-47 could be interesting owing to it's history of toss bombing, it's recon missions, and just generally learning about the first large jet, and how so many of their crews perished in a flash. all had their place in the cold war, and two Tupolev's are still a major factor even today. Maybe that would complicate matters to get permissions for full modules. That might mean a "free mod medium fidelity" might be the best way to go? You can make it "pretty realistic" but not "3 to 6 workstations with every button and knob" workload to make and "fly" with. Don't need permissions, and if information is received by word of mouth, well so be it.

I believe you are correct. But beyond the timeline known as "anytime soon", is a different matter. In distant future, other maps of the ME aren't just possible, I think they are likely, until eventually the whole ME is modelled in entirety. But this would likely be during the "whole world" "map" structure that is in development at ED. No, don't expect that anytime soon either. But I do believe it will happen. And I believe all current maps will get updates to allow eventual integration with the "world map", which would require making these maps "curvature" and not perfectly flat. But don't hold your breath! This is all subject to change, as I'm talking about a long enough timeline that things... change

Thank you sir!

I think the concern wasn't so much about China, but rather concerns about a possible conflict with a certain other island, located near the Taiwan straight perhaps? But let's please get this back on topic of the Phantom and Heatblur, there are other threads in this forum discussing maps and such !! if you do a search of threads I have posted in, you'll see many posts in discussions about possible future maps!

I don't wanna say "impossible", so I'm gonna say it's "unlikely". First, ED these days is only interested in "full fidelity" modules, meaning 100% as realistic as they can achieve legally speaking. Then there is the issue of licensing: if it's a free mod, most companies don't care (except Fox with it's "Alien" based content, whom usually hits with cease and desist legal papers). But once money is involved, and or claims of realism, that's when the IP rights holders of various things suddenly get excited about either shutting you down, or cold hard cash money! Many mod makers are not full time flight sim developers, but are hobbyists, tinkerers, having fun making things in their spare time and sharing the results with us. Many might enjoy DCS but not be interested in doing full paid modules. Many of the aircraft that VSN have put out, are also been announced by other teams to be making full modules... so in a way, you may get your wish, albeit with maybe more complexity and realism, and a bigger price tag, than you were maybe expecting?

Hmmm??? Wots this about then?? I hadn't heard about this, curious for details!

These are all good ideas for maps, and as long as DCS remains popular, I think it's probable that such maps may eventually all be available. Might take a long time to get all of them though!!

If you mean "would they" in case of "politics", well, I dunno. If you mean "is it physically possible to make a map of this region for DCS?" then yes, I think it's possible. But maybe not "playable" on todays gaming rigs. We almost certainly have to wait, for software optimisations, for our own gaming rigs to have the power to process such detail fast enough for fluid frames with lots of "units playing". The real question, IMO, is how long of a wait we'll have... might be a year, might be a decade, might be longer. But I'm hoping, and believing, that this may be possible in less than 5 years. Though there have been times I've been quite wrong in the past!