DCS Product Terms Discussion

[Lizzard]

Hmm...FC (LOMAC) was IMHO allways the "Module" for the average Hobby Flightsimmer..who not wants to study Buttons, Avionics and Flightdynamics for weeks/months..Putting these Aircrafts slowly into the PFM Thing is maybe a bit backfiring..business wise..but anyway good for the hardcore Guys:)

[sobek]

It is really childish act what ED is doing:) I thought this guys are serious adults but this kind of word playing is not serious, confusing and irritating, no offence, this is the trues!!!

 

How is it wordplay to better document the functional scope of a product? I'm sorry, i don't follow.

 

 

Putting these Aircrafts slowly into the PFM Thing is maybe a bit backfiring..business wise..but anyway good for the hardcore Guys:)

 

I don't think that a PFM is something that anybody would object to, at least in jets, since even with a PFM basic flying is easy enough. Still, all the more advanced modules feature options to turn down the difficulty. Seems like a non issue really from where i'm standing.

Edited April 10, 2014 by sobek

[blackbelter]

If they wish to change or evolve products, just use the same categories we now have to define the changes.

 

Maybe you can begin by providing a list of categories that will be able to accommodate ALL modules that ED has released/is going to release, and that clearly differentiate the modules according to what they are. I guess it is going to be a hundred-page-book called The possible categories for flight simulations. Maybe we can buy it off Amazon and study it. Maybe this is going to be the compulsory reading before anyone wants to buy a DCS module.

[streakeagle]

Having clearly labeled products accurately indicating what the end user can expect from them has nothing to do with remaining rigid and static. If a product doesn't fit in an old category, create a distinct new one and identify what makes it different from the old categories.

 

It was ED who chose to create two tiers of quality/complexity with the labels DCS and DCS FC, where DCS meant hard core FM and clickable pits and DCS FC meant lighter FM and simpler systems. The preview video clearly announced a DCS F-15C, not a DCS FC aircraft with an AFM or PFM. Maybe at that time they meant to make it full DCS PFM/ASM? Then as recently as this week, they post a new web page with the DCS moniker despite having made it clear that it was not going to have ASM. So there was good reason to be confused about EDS product labeling conventions versus feature sets until the clarifications posted today.

 

Assuming the bugs are ironed out quickly, I am more than happy with the amount of detail and work that has gone into the new F-15C PFM upgrade, and I am looking forward to the Su-27, too. Any time ED wants to give me something better than what I had, good... for free, even better :) But just a slightly better choice of words could avoid confusion and/or disappointment.

 

Compared to the MiG-21bis debacle, any confusion about the labeling and features of the F-15C aren't even worth discussing. The fact that I am even posting in this topic at all reflects that I was too tired to enjoy flying tonight.

[statrekmike]

Maybe you can begin by providing a list of categories that will be able to accommodate ALL modules that ED has released/is going to release, and that clearly differentiate the modules according to what they are. I guess it is going to be a hundred-page-book called The possible categories for flight simulations. Maybe we can buy it off Amazon and study it. Maybe this is going to be the compulsory reading before anyone wants to buy a DCS module.

 

 

Did you see the first post in this topic? The one with all those handy acronyms that let us know the two important factors that make up a module (both the level of complexity in the flight model and the level of complexity in systems operation)?

 

So, if you look at that first post, the chart that lays out everything, you will see that any given module can be defined with two acronyms, nothing more, no "book" or any other nonsense, just two acronyms.

 

For example, lets say ED were to announce a new module tomorrow, they would only need to pick two acronyms from the chart (again, the one on the first page of this topic) to tell us everything we need to know.

 

It would look something like this.

 

ED is now working on a module for the ME-163 rocket interceptor, it will have PFM flight model and ASM systems modeling.

 

That is it, that tells us everything we need to know about the nature of a new or existing project.

 

Hardly a book at all.

[blackbelter]

That is it, that tells us everything we need to know about the nature of a new or existing project.

 

Hardly a book at all.

 

I guess you could have said the same thing when we only had SFM (then SSM/ASM were not defined), when we had only SFM/AFM, when we have SFM/AFM/AFM+/PFM and SSM/ASM. Who knows what is going to change next? It could be anything that may not fit into any of the above categories.

 

I think you get my point... Bye.

[159th_Viper]

It could be anything that may not fit into any of the above categories.

 

And?

 

If it does not fit then you create a new category to accomodate/describe the new change. Simple.

 

Honestly, with the new terms comprehensively explaining all matters of flight model fidelity and systems modelling, if one still finds oneself choking then it's about time to learn to take smaller bites!

[blackbelter]

If it does not fit then you create a new category to accomodate/describe the new change.

 

That is my whole point.

[TAW_Blaze]

Hmm...FC (LOMAC) was IMHO allways the "Module" for the average Hobby Flightsimmer..who not wants to study Buttons, Avionics and Flightdynamics for weeks/months..Putting these Aircrafts slowly into the PFM Thing is maybe a bit backfiring..business wise..but anyway good for the hardcore Guys:)

 

Just because you can click your mouse on the screen to operate buttons it's not 'hardcore' nor 'realistic'. In depth modeling of systems is a different thing, but in a way fighter jocks are a lot more hardcore than the ground pounders. It takes a lot of years to get really good at it. I mean a LOT, even with incredible amount of flight hours. Not to take away anything from the mud movers but you're simply wrong.

[statrekmike]

That is my whole point.

 

I think you will find that the new system pretty much covers everything, I seriously doubt they will ever come out with something that would defy classification in the new system.

 

Perhaps you could come up with a situation where a module does not fall under the new classification system and if so, then I might be more compelled to agree with you.

[Lizzard]

Just because you can click your mouse on the screen to operate buttons it's not 'hardcore' nor 'realistic'. In depth modeling of systems is a different thing' date=' but in a way fighter jocks are a lot more hardcore than the ground pounders. It takes a lot of years to get really good at it. I mean a LOT, even with incredible amount of flight hours. Not to take away anything from the mud movers but you're simply wrong.[/quote']

 

 

Whatever you say, Sir! :)

[blackbelter]

I think you will find that the new system pretty much covers everything, I seriously doubt they will ever come out with something that would defy classification in the new system.

 

Perhaps you could come up with a situation where a module does not fall under the new classification system and if so, then I might be more compelled to agree with you.

 

Such as when they model systems according to special and general relativity instead of Newtonian mechanics, and air friction according to quantum mechanics? "Relativistic flight models (RFM), Quantum Air Friction Models (QAFM).":D

 

Seriously, this discussion isn't going anywhere. So bye.

Edited April 10, 2014 by blackbelter

[Wolf Rider]

~(not to mention the term has been watered down somewhat by others picking it up for their own sims)~

 

never thought that would have happened (though expressed many moons ago)

 

So now... DCS PFM quality :)

[Bucic]

This is when marketing b* is obsolete! :thumbup: Exciting times ahead.

[NineLine]

I guess you could have said the same thing when we only had SFM (then SSM/ASM were not defined), when we had only SFM/AFM, when we have SFM/AFM/AFM+/PFM and SSM/ASM. Who knows what is going to change next? It could be anything that may not fit into any of the above categories.

 

I think you get my point... Bye.

 

 

The sim world is evolving, flight models are getting more complex, ED is acknowledging this by explaining that through these descriptions, if in a year or two, a more advanced FM is developed, then perhaps these will need to be adjusted (either by amending these descriptions or expanding with new ones) but it just wasnt fair to classify everything as AFM/SFM when there is so much more going on.

 

As well, we now see the modelling of systems described as well. I am glad they finally put this out there, its going to make product description much easier, not just for ED, but even 3rd party groups...

[HiJack]

Great info. What a great time this is for us simmers :thumbup: Now let's get some dynamic campaign :smartass:

[AdolfoWilson]

To me every new addition and upgrade will be good at all.

Let's see... For years since LOMAC i expected for upgrades to make my flight sim experience better. A time passed, then the first FC came out. I took a look at every new thing that was coming with that, the high polygon aircraft model just amazed me, the flight modeling i saw in the videos over the internet just made me go after somewhere to buy it instantly, finally one upgrade, something new just came out to my LOMAC, but, the rest remains all the same, just few tweaks on logics and scripting, ED didn't had the total property of LOMAC they couldn't change things nor upgrade things up the way i wanted, and Ubi simply dropped this Sim to dust... The mod community was the only option, but a mod doesn't feel as an authentic ED product. So i stopped flying Lomac.

But then Black Shark started it all.

Today i'm seeing all the updates and inevitably get exited, i expended hours looking for a 3D cockpit model, but it was inexistent, and now i can fly on fully modeled 3D pits on new aircrafts, things that before was impossible to have in lomac we have now on DCS, and they are bringing these updates to the old fighters too, FC is the way they found to bring in the Lomac content as their own product with the quality that ED has showed us on making sims, for a long time i thought Simulation market for home PCs was dead, Microsoft is out, old sim developers are no longer in scene, but ED found a way to survive that dark period, and now we have this old product being ported to the modern era of big graphics and computing power.

 

So to understand FC and DCS, you have to look to how things happened from past to nowadays. FC is no longer bound to a Lomac copy, this took a long time to happen, now that this belongs to ED completely, they are making this unbounding of the one original Lomac, witch is the process of upgrading of all planes that was held back by the Lomac label for so many years, thats why for some newcomers the DCS seems a bit unpolished as a whole "game", this is mostly the same engine of 10 years ago taking all these new things in it.

 

You will find that there is some inaccurate information on what i'm posting here, but i hope this helps some things to be more clear about the relation of DCS and FC, this even makes me think about the future, like fully clickable FC3 fighters with the option of a lighter mode in witch you use the way you use today to interact with FC cockpits in case you are not that hard-core.

I believe ED will find good ways to deal with the hardships that will come within this process and we will get us more well built planes into DCS. Sorry for the long texting. :D