Aircraft era fracture

[Flogger23m]

Its pretty simple, they wont, 3rd party devs make what they want and are capable to make if they can't they will make nothing.

 

There is no need for entire theatres to come with every aircraft, when there is a critical mass of aircraft of an era then someone will step up and make one just like RRG with ww2.

 

They seem to be going in the right direction to me, building the foundation for many others to make sims.

 

Thank you for displaying to the world your lack of comprehension skills. :thumbup: The question was how to concentrate 3rd party development. The answer is simple: Build within the set time frame. The various modules will then fit in a concentrated area without the individual teams having to synchronize development. For example, take the Super Hornet and the Mirage 2000. Independent development teams yet both will manage to fit in a proper combat environment. It may be a strange concept to you, but it certainly isn't for most of us.

 

Oh. Thank you for correcting me. See, I thought that I wanted to fly different specific planes and helicopters, even though I just wanted to learn how to fly them. But apparently I was wrong, because you're telling me that I'd be happy with any aircraft, since I'm not obsessed about having nationally, periodically and geographically correct enemies to shoot down and maps to fly on. I fully believed that, so thank you for telling me what I really think. While we're at it, what shirt should I wear tomorrow?

 

Seems like you are happy with simply learning to throw switches on certain aircraft regardless of the simulated environment. Thanks for confirming my point. :doh:

 

Those looking for a full simulation won't be interested in simply learning the flight procedures. Those who are interested in learning controls only will be happy without a proper environment. It really isn't hard to grasp and you should not make it more difficult than it is.

[VincentLaw]

The question was how to concentrate 3rd party development. The answer is simple: Build within the set time frame.

The answer is even more simple than that: You can't.

 

If third parties can't develop what they want to develop, then they go somewhere else. What would you say if PMDG came here and wanted to make DCS 787? "No, you have to make a MiG-31 instead." That's not going to work. They are just going to go back to FSX. Not only do you not get more modules for your pet time period, you don't get more modules period.

[Wolf Rider]

 

What would you say if PMDG came here and wanted to make DCS 787?

 

 

 

I'd ask if it was going to be made to DCS PFM quality and will there be a proper commercial aviation map to fly it on...

 

:huh:

[Scrim]

Seems like you are happy with simply learning to throw switches on certain aircraft regardless of the simulated environment. Thanks for confirming my point. :doh:

 

The map I don't give a hoot about, but what planes and helicopters I get, that I very much care about. Tell me, how will I get a P-51D if ED would do something as stupid as to narrow down DCS to '70s and forwards?

 

 

Now I will complain to the local grocery store that the brown beans I bought yesterday didn't taste exactly like orange juice. After that, I'll tell you of the folly of buying something and complaining that the product you bought isn't something clearly different than what the label told you it was. Or about the narrow mindedness of assuming that your specific taste is the single correct one.

[Flogger23m]

The map I don't give a hoot about, but what planes and helicopters I get, that I very much care about. Tell me, how will I get a P-51D if ED would do something as stupid as to narrow down DCS to '70s and forwards?

 

 

Now I will complain to the local grocery store that the brown beans I bought yesterday didn't taste exactly like orange juice. After that, I'll tell you of the folly of buying something and complaining that the product you bought isn't something clearly different than what the label told you it was. Or about the narrow mindedness of assuming that your specific taste is the single correct one.

 

Congratulations, you missed the point yet again. No one cares about which specific aircraft you prefer. The discussion is not about a person's aircraft preference. If you forgot the thread title I'll repost it here:

 

Aircraft era fracture

 

The question was how to minimize this. Had this game had a sufficient WWII environment (which it does not; though DCS: WWII will) then the ideal way to minimize time era fracture would be to make WWII era aircraft. It isn't a hard idea to grasp.

 

The only other way to do this is for a team to focus on building a larger module/expansion, much like the team behind DCS: WWII is doing. But clearly that requires a bigger team and aircraft only studios are not in that business. Hence the aforementioned argument.

 

Regarding civil aviation I would prefer if they stay out of DCS World, save for AI units. DCS should stick true to its roots: A combat flight simulator. Half the simulation in a title like Flaming Cliffs or A-10C is the combat. The sandbox "do everything" concept is a terrible one due to the lack of man power. Take a look at ArmA, a game with a bigger team and likely more money to work with than Eagle Dynamics. Nothing in the game is superb in quality; everything suffers as it attempts to cover everything. 3rd parties will likely be unable to work on engine related features to make civil aviation what it should be.

[Winfield_Gold]

I'd ask if it was going to be made to DCS PFM quality and will there be a proper commercial aviation map to fly it on...

 

:huh:

 

I'd ask if it could have countermeasures fitted to it

[winz]

@Flogger23m

As was stated, there is only one way to stop era fracture - closing your platform and only work with 3rd party developers who want to develop for your chosen period. The problem with this approach is that you drastically reduce the number of modules you get to fly, because you cannot force a 3rd party dev to develop something they don't want.

 

If anything was proven by the longetivty of FSX is that closing your platform is not the way to go, openning it is. Sure, you get era fracture at first, because only a handful of devs will choose your platform. But If those developers are successful and prove that your platform is valid then they will attract more 3rd party devs, slowly filling the fracture holes. Sure it will take several years, but in the end it will be well worth it.

 

Bottom line is, you are not wasting manhours by this fracuture, because those manhours would not be available if you would focus on one era.

[HansRoaming]

It's just a matter of reaching critical mass like FSX has, which even though the product is dead still has new add-ons coming out for it.

 

DCS is looking to be the FSX of the military aviation world which is just awesome, as more planes get released then more developers and people come.

 

BTW The biggest issue for me is maps, I know another one is coming but having multiple theatres would be awesome.

[howie87]

The problem with DCS for civil aviation is the tiny theatre, poor ATC implementation and lack of navigation aids.

 

FSX, P3D and X-Plane have pretty much an entire world to fly in with accurate runways, frequencies, terrain, weather etc.

 

Those guys don't want to fly their tube liners in circles around Georgia while trying to avoid being shot down. They want to file an IFR flight plan across europe or the Atlantic and use Vatsim to talk to real controllers on the ground.

 

It's a completely different kind of simulation and something that DCS just isn't able to offer right now.

[winz]

Yeah, but you cannot get to the end of the road without walking the path. Noone is going to release a civil aviation addon accompanied with total rehaul of atc and ground based navigation. The same way noone will release a whole Vietnam war module with multiple of DCS level aircrafts. RRG is imho the only group that can relese a whole package because of the history they have with developing full ww2 sim games. But that its.

 

For other eras we have to walk the path...a civil plane might not be very usefull for now, but it might be the first step required. And I'm not saying it has to start with an airliner, even a DCS level Cessna, or glider might be actually a blast to fly, especially when EDGE comes along.

[lmp]

The problem with DCS for civil aviation is the tiny theatre, poor ATC implementation and lack of navigation aids.

 

FSX, P3D and X-Plane have pretty much an entire world to fly in with accurate runways, frequencies, terrain, weather etc.

 

Those guys don't want to fly their tube liners in circles around Georgia while trying to avoid being shot down. They want to file an IFR flight plan across europe or the Atlantic and use Vatsim to talk to real controllers on the ground.

 

It's a completely different kind of simulation and something that DCS just isn't able to offer right now.

 

Civil aviation is not just IFR flying for thousands of kms in a 747.

[sobek]

The problem with DCS for civil aviation is the tiny theatre

 

Who ever said it needs to become a civil aviation simulator?

[VincentLaw]

Yeah, but you cannot get to the end of the road without walking the path. Noone is going to release a civil aviation addon accompanied with total rehaul of atc and ground based navigation. The same way noone will release a whole Vietnam war module with multiple of DCS level aircrafts. RRG is imho the only group that can relese a whole package because of the history they have with developing full ww2 sim games. But that its.

This is basically right. Some of the arguments here are essentially "You shouldn't start mowing the lawn because the other half of the lawn is not mowed yet." If you don't start somewhere, it will never be done, and no matter what side you start on, the other side won't be done yet.

 

Who ever said it needs to become a civil aviation simulator?

That is kind of my fault for bringing up the 787, but look here:

DCS stands for “Digital Combat Simulator”. DCS is a world simulation engine permitting the user to operate or direct a growing number of combat and civilian aircraft, ground vehicles and ships, from different historical eras, in different geographical locations and at different levels of fidelity..

Of course there is a difference between being a pure "civilian simulator" and being a simulator with flyable civilian aircraft.

[Scrim]

Congratulations, you missed the point yet again. No one cares about which specific aircraft you prefer. The discussion is not about a person's aircraft preference. If you forgot the thread title I'll repost it here:

 

Aircraft era fracture

 

The question was how to minimize this. Had this game had a sufficient WWII environment (which it does not; though DCS: WWII will) then the ideal way to minimize time era fracture would be to make WWII era aircraft. It isn't a hard idea to grasp.

 

The only other way to do this is for a team to focus on building a larger module/expansion, much like the team behind DCS: WWII is doing. But clearly that requires a bigger team and aircraft only studios are not in that business. Hence the aforementioned argument.

 

Regarding civil aviation I would prefer if they stay out of DCS World, save for AI units. DCS should stick true to its roots: A combat flight simulator. Half the simulation in a title like Flaming Cliffs or A-10C is the combat. The sandbox "do everything" concept is a terrible one due to the lack of man power. Take a look at ArmA, a game with a bigger team and likely more money to work with than Eagle Dynamics. Nothing in the game is superb in quality; everything suffers as it attempts to cover everything. 3rd parties will likely be unable to work on engine related features to make civil aviation what it should be.

 

:doh: So, no one cares about the specific aircraft that I want to fly, but everyone should care about the ones you want to fly? That is what you are saying, since you're ranting about ED not saying "GTFO" to 3rd party devs who aren't doing that.

And if I need to spell it out loud, I'll do it for you: I wasn't talking about me specifically. I was talking about me as an example of average DCS players.

 

It is outright stupid to try minimizing the scope of DCS, as the diversity has been a key selling point since day one. If you don't like that, I suggest you take up another flight sim, instead of moaning that DCS is what it was clearly stated to be when you started playing it, and not your own dream picture of what it should be.

 

Regarding civil aviation: Though I'm no big fan of it myself, you're just barking up not one, but two wrong trees here. For starters, as has been stated in the same FAQs that explain the sandbox nature of DCS, DCS is very much open to civilian aircraft. And as for the second wrong tree: How can you say DCS should stick to one of its "true roots" (a root that is only true in your imagination, as has been established), but completely ignore another of its true roots, namely being a sandbox flight sim? I'm guessing it's the same answer as before. It's not interesting to you, so you say it's bad for DCS to include it, though it means you're completely missing the point of 3rd party devs: If you tell them they're not allowed to introduce a module because it "doesn't fit", odds are they'll pack their stuff and take their business elsewhere, not develop one that "fits".

 

3rd party devs that will hopefully make up a large portion of the modules in a not too long time can be attracted because they are free to develop whichever module they wish. This means they are able to chose whichever plane or helicopter they think are likely to sell well, instead of having to pick less attractive ones because the attractive ones within the era they are forced to stick within have already been spoken for by other devs.

[Wolf Rider]

@Scrim...

 

the "true roots" originally only had a small handful of planes with which to fly... what was it 4 or 5, with the roots of the roots having even less and the "sandbox" thing only came about recently, whilst that started out as a playground.

Usually, when people go chasing the bucks, quality loses out...

[VincentLaw]

Usually, when people go chasing the bucks, quality loses out...

You can still expect high quality from ED. That is why we don't have an F-18 yet. Of course ED will do some quality control on the third parties, but there is no guarantee that third parties will be the same quality as ED, nor that they will all have PFM/ASM quality work. I don't think anything is stopping a third party from releasing an SFM/SSM module other than the community. Having more third party diversity is not going to change that. Vote for what you like with your wallet.

[Scrim]

@Scrim...

 

the "true roots" originally only had a small handful of planes with which to fly... what was it 4 or 5, with the roots of the roots having even less and the "sandbox" thing only came about recently, whilst that started out as a playground.

Usually, when people go chasing the bucks, quality loses out...

 

The "true roots" is about staying true to what you said the game would be from the beginning, i.e. a sandbox sim in this case.

 

Sorry, but the "chasing bucks" statement is utter bull in this case. If anything, it's about making 3rd party modules viable for 3rd party devs who want to actually make enough money to go around. If they can chose between essentially every single helicopter or plane without ruling anything out due to the "wrong" time era, that becomes a possibility. On the other hand, if they are forced to make modules of planes and helicopters they know won't sell because they are forced to stay within a certain era, they won't make a profit, or even make up for the money spent developing the module.

 

Don't act so derogatory about ED and 3rd party devs trying to make a profit from DCS and modules. That is how business works. They don't create this in their spare time as a charity. Of course they have to be able to make a profit.

[Wolf Rider]

Scrim... the sim series is over 10 years old now, and "the sandbox" is a recent development along with newly developed modules. The sim just didn't start when you happened along.

Chase the bucks ~ etc is utter bull?? sorry Scrim but anyone, even you, can see what I say there everywhere in everyday life... its a sad fact of life, and no-one is being "derogatory" to ED or TFC... they are very thoroughly respected - so please don't go putting words/ stances into peoples' mouths/ positions.

 

A true creator isn't dollar driven, Scrim, though it is good to be able to make a living from doing what one does really enjoy doing. Throwing more bucks at something, isn't necessarily going to make it better or get it out quicker - in fact, it can do quite the opposite... one of the best situations for true creativity is a very tight budget.

Edited April 12, 2014 by Wolf Rider
added wiki link

[winz]

A true creator isn't dollar driven, Scrim, though it is good to be able to make a living from doing what one does really enjoy doing. Throwing more bucks at something, isn't necessarily going to make it better or get it out quicker - in fact, it can do quite the opposite... one of the best situations for true creativity is a very tight budget.

ED isn't some idealized 'true creator', ED is a company trying to make enought revenue to pay thier employees and satisfy thier shareholders. It was allways dollar driven, but you can be dollar driven and keep your standards, those two are not exclusive.

[sobek]

one of the best situations for true creativity is a very tight budget.

 

Sure thing, that's why all these great ideas need to make a few mils off kickstarter before they can take off. I'm sure the people doing those projects prefer an athmosphere of anxiety and not knowing how to pay next months bills over being able to concentrate on the task at hand. Please, you can't be serious. :doh::huh:

[sobek]

satisfy thier shareholders.

 

ED isn't on the stock exchange.

[winz]

Ok, my bad :)

[Silver_Dragon]

Updating the First post list with Unofficial Roadmap info:

 

World war 2

Bf-109K-4 (RRG)

P-51 (ED)

FW-190D-9 (RRG)

Me-262A-1(RRG)

P-47D-30 (RRG)

Spitfire Mk IX (RRG)

Hawker Typhoon IB (RRG To-Do)

FW-190A-5 (RRG To-Do)

A-26B-15 Invade (RRG To-Do)

P-38J-15 (RRG To-Do)

Mosquito FB.VI (RRG To-Do)

B-17 (RRG To-Do)

 

Korea

F-86F (Belsimtek)

Mig-15Bis (Unkonow)

 

Vietnam

A-7 (RAZBAM To-Do)

AH-1G (Belsimtek)

F-100D (TeamVCR)

MiG-21Bis (LN)

T-2 BuckEye (RAZBAM)

UH-1H (Belsimtek)

 

mid to late Cold war

A-7 (RAZBAM To-Do)

A-10A (FC-3)

AV8B Harrier II (RAZBAM To-Do)

C-101 (AvioDev)

F-15C (FC-3)

F-15E Strike Eagle (RAZBAM To-Do)

F-18C

Hawk T.M1 (VEAO)

Jas-39 Grippen (VEAO To-Do)

Ka-50

L-39 Albatros ZA/ZO/C (Albatros Team)

MiG-21Bis (LN)

Mig-29A (FC-3)

Mig-29G (FC-3)

Mig-29S (FC-3)

Mi-8MTV2 Hip (Belsimtek)

Mi-24 Hind (Belsimtek To-Do list)

Mirage F-1M (AvioDev)

Mirage 2000C (RAZBAM)

OH-58D (Belsimtek To-Do)

Su-25 (FC-3)

Su-25T

Su-27S (FC-3)

Su-33 (FC-3)

Tornado GR-1 (VEAO To-Do)

UH-1H (Belsimtek)

 

Modern day

A-10C

Eurofighter (VEAO To-Do)

F-18E (Coretex)

T-6 Texan II (RAZBAM To-Do)

 

Ground

Advanced Vehicle Research / DCS: Armour

 

Civilian

TF-51D

[Scrim]

...

 

Definitely bulls. Most has already been well addressed by others, so I'll just settle for pointing out that you're making a straw man argument about "the series" as I've never said anything about that. What I've quite clearly addressed has been DCS itself.

[Wolf Rider]

Actually, Scrim, as you said "the true roots"... that by definition goes back - right back to the beginning. You could do well to re-read my posts, because, no you weren't clear.

Also, there are only certain eras, which can be developed to, whether a developer is forced to lock into an era or not, and they're the eras which different people have been calling for, as mentioned earlier

 

Yes, Sobek - serious (and you're not "making a living", if you're not knowing how to pay next month's bills living in a state of anxiety... I said "a tight budget", not "living on a shoestring" or flat broke).

Edited April 12, 2014 by Wolf Rider