Cortex Designs

[NineLine]

Kinda like another thread here for an unreleased product I know of with no development news. :D

 

They only give you what you can handle, and history shows you cant handle much... and once again, be-careful where you guys tread in this thread...

[Dejjvid]

Who said A2G radar is impossible with the current engine? :doh:

 

Looking at pictures and videos from CTD they still had several years with the current pace before they could release a beta. The E has some really classified features, no point in making a DCS module if you can't model the important systems. Same goes for the other devs claiming to do 4+ gen and 5th gen fighters. It's a hoax, they might as well do some aircraft from Star Wars.

 

This is not FSX, where you can sell shit and people craving for military aircraft will buy it, as long as it's shiny.

[Slipp]

Who said A2G radar is impossible with the current engine? :doh:

 

Looking at pictures and videos from CTD they still had several years with the current pace before they could release a beta. The E has some really classified features, no point in making a DCS module if you can't model the important systems. Same goes for the other devs claiming to do 4+ gen and 5th gen fighters. It's a hoax, they might as well do some aircraft from Star Wars.

 

This is not FSX, where you can sell shit and people craving for military aircraft will buy it, as long as it's shiny.

 

They could ommit some classified features, realease a module that is somewhere between FC3 and A-10C. If there is room for FC, there is also room for other not-fully DCS level modules.

[Cibit]

Just my opinion. I would imagine any developer now would not get away with a FC3 type. The bar has been set and I for one would hate to see it lowered

[emg]

They could ommit some classified features, realease a module that is somewhere between FC3 and A-10C.

 

DCS A-10C has omitted, classified features too, as will the ED F-18C. Same for DCS ECM and IFF.

 

IMO the question is, can you make the aircraft 90% true to life... 50%... 10%? And at what point, for you as a paying customer, do you get acceptable fidelity?

Edited February 9, 2015 by emg

[Aginor]

I'm surprised about it myself, but actually I wouldn't mind some missing stuff and/or guesswork. Much better than FC3 either way.

I think one important "test plane" for that will be the VEAO Eurofighter. We will see a lot of guesswork there, and they most likely won't even tell us what is accurate and what isn't.

Let's see if people like it or not. My personal guess: Most will like it, if it "feels" deep and detailed. Lots of stuff to click and to use.

 

Or take the VRS Superbug for FSX as an example: I am pretty sure they just pulled some of that stuff out of their... ehh.. sleeves? :D

Whatever. Most of it works nicely. CTD said they aim for that level of fidelity, maybe a bit more. That's all we can expect from a modern plane, for the reasons stated numerous times already, and I think most people would be happy with it, even though it isn't 100% or even 80% accurate.

[shagrat]

Well, What is the problem with a modern Jet isn't 100% as in real live? The current AA Missiles are not 100%, IFF is not working as in real life, ECM is definitely nothing like real life, AI Damage model is "Hitpoint" sections...

Yet everybody enjoys a mission in the A-10C or Mig-21 and most people never ven noticed, what's not 100%... so why shouldn't it be possible to "declassify" some critical systems in a modern jet and give us an "inaccurate" representation?

Or would anyone that never worked on the A-10C actually realise how many pages on the MFCD or CDU may be missing, or wrong, oor if everything is really 100% ?

 

I guess we should relax a bit more and just wait what is coming next.

At least now we have 3rd parties which contribute to DCS. The amount f modules available already greatly increased over the last years and so many more are under development.

 

At least for me it was obvious a DCS module takes years of develeopment time.

When ED did it alone, I wondered if we see a new plane to DCS standard in the next decade, or hopefully before I die.

 

Now we got a bunch of DCS level jets coming and I wonder if I can manage to learn them all before I die...

[emg]

I think one important "test plane" for that will be the VEAO Eurofighter. We will see a lot of guesswork there, and they most likely won't even tell us what is accurate and what isn't.

Let's see if people like it or not. My personal guess: Most will like it, if it "feels" deep and detailed. Lots of stuff to click and to use.

 

One interesting thing; they said they have a military contract, they're talking to the government or Airbus about which systems they can implement, and which systems they have to fake. And probably, how they're going to fake them.

 

So, compare this to a well-informed 3rd party dev without a military contract, using reaonable, qualified guesswork for the classified systems.

 

Would we regular DCS users be able to tell the difference? What do you think?

Edited February 9, 2015 by emg

[shagrat]

^this exactly

[WinterH]

First off, this post is not adressing Coretex's efforts, but is rather my opinion on guesswork of features for any potential DCS product.

 

I am somewhat OK with missing and/or simplified stuff due to agreements with militaries and/or manufacturer. But I personally am averted towards guesswork in DCS. I would not be so in case of a sim-lite / survey sim which declare it as just that and have other features in place to make it work. But in my opinion it shouldn't belong in DCS.

 

Even FC3, with it's simple system modeling and more gameplay oriented operating of aircraft, is thankfuly moving away from guesswork in flight, aircraft sensor and weapons modeling.

 

I am ok with omission and simplification to some degree but no so much with guesstimation.

 

Guessworking how to operate radar and other sensors, how radar perform, guessworking MFD pages etc is not what I would pay for in DCS.

[shagrat]

I guess the A-10C is a pretty good example of how representing real systems omitting some classified stuff and tweaking systems without guesswork can provide a great simulation.

[WinterH]

Indeed shagrat, that is exactly what I mean in my previous post. DCS : A-10C is a great example of that.

 

We know it is not %100, but we also know it is built on solid data from firsthand and is not built on estimation. And I am, obviously, perfectly fine with that :).

[Aginor]

Sometimes you might be able to tell. Most of the time if something works at all, and halfway logical, you probably won't.

Regardless of whether it was some aircraft company or DoD that told you how to fake it, or whether you just did what you considered fitting.

 

Example: The IFF system in the Huey is pretty much non-functional as far as I know. The switches move, but all of them except two do nothing. The system presumably changes just one bit somewhere in the sim, that says "IFF:on" or "IFF:off". And even if it does more it is guesswork. It just does what the programmers thought it could maybe do. Perhaps they are right, perhaps they are wrong.

IMO that's better than the implementation in the A-10C, where you just can't click anything and if you mouse-over it says "not implemented". One is better for immersion than the other. (of course it is allowed to disagree, depending on your point of view)

Also if you have a military contract they might prevent you from implementing your best guess because it is too close to reality. So they might actually force you to make it work worse than guesswork.

That's ok, it is their job and they have the right to do it.

 

But I really can't say if that is "better" or "worse" than just guessing it.

[Flagrum]

For me, all this (in this order) would be acceptable:

1. 100% like in RL

2. Tweaked parameters (due to confidentially reasons). System should look and feel like the real one, but some operating parameters might be "adjusted" (detection ranges for sensors ... and stuff like that perhaps)

3. "Guess work", but only if the whole system would not be implemented otherwise. And it has to be in line with the rest of the aircraft. I.e. no "magic happens here" - it just has to make sense. AND ofc only if these guessed systems don't take overhand (and only stick and throttle would remain true to the real thing ...)

 

Btw, the thing with all the missing IFF implementations ... afaik should be no guesswork necessary at all to implement it in DCS. The theoretical operations principles are known, the handling and use of the cockpit devices are known and the expected results are known. The only secret part is the encryption that is used in some of it's operating modes. Even the encryption algorithms might be known, idk, but the only really important part, the encryption keys that are used and changed on a day by day basis, are kept secret.

 

There is no real reason as to why IFF should not be (allowed) to be implemented. IF that were the case, then even our comms radios could not be implemented - as they rely, too, on encryption (KY-58).

 

edit:

I rather suspect that a change in the DCS core would be necessary to make IFF actually usefull. Information has to be exchanged between the two aircraft that are involved - in our sim, they have to cooperate. Every aircraft in DCS already "knows" if the other one is friendly or an enemy. But for IFF, it is important to know if a friendly aircraft has it's IFF transponder disabled and thus would not react to pings and appear as potential hostile. For that, they need to "talk" to each other - which would especially for MP require proabably a slight enhancement of the network protocol.

Edited February 9, 2015 by Flagrum

[Aginor]

Yeah, I agree.

 

But the point is: If a system is confidential and you have a contract, you may not even be allowed to model ANY functionality, regardless of how simple or known it is, and which parts are the reason for the secrecy. If they tell you "you are allowed to include the panel, but it shall not be clickable" you implement it that way. Not even the power switch. They might not distinguish between parts of the system and the whole system.

Just like the German law about weapons of war. If something is part of a weapon of war, it is handled like the whole weapon. So the same part might be legal or not, depending on the system it belongs to.

So the use of the power switch of a confidential IFF system may be confidential, as ridiculous as it sounds.

[razo+r]

coretexdesigns?

 

Where is their forum or their thread?

 

And why did they stopped working on the f18e?

[GodsPrototype]

Where is their forum or their thread?

 

And why did they stopped working on the f18e?

 

Check they're facebook. They're "temporarily" putting the project on hold. Not sure if it's temporarily, but we'll see. Hopefully they're ok.

 

https://www.facebook.com/CoreTexDesigns?ref=br_tf

[razo+r]

I know that they're Holding on, but is There a special Problem they can't solve?

[Dingo_Bob]

Probably Boeing rearing their restrictive head again???

[Aginor]

They haven't told us yet.

[borchi_2b]

Not the same situation, they have a military contract, 3rd party license and a contract with ED to make the EF.

 

Sorry to say so, but the Eurofighter will not see a DCS action by many years. And I am honest about it, cause I have seen what is all classified of that bird. There are thousand of pages that are not for puplic at all, and I see no real chance, that anybdy gets a clearance for civil use only. It is more likely to produce for the Airfoces an eurofighter then we as civils will ever see it in DCS at a level of DCS. Anybody who produces a Eurofighter without clearance of all the Airforces that are involved might have to face with many many many years of prison. And I know how icky the german air force is about such topics.

 

About the F18E it is the same issue.

I fear, that in most cases nobody will ever get a clearance for a DCS standard Fighter that is at the 4 generation plus, unless you have proven some product to the industry and thier partners.

[Lizzard]

imho just saying "Development is currently on hold." and nothing more bodes nothing good.....this just leaves us with wildest speculations..and nobody knows what is really going on..

[Flagrum]

Sorry to say so, but the Eurofighter will not see a DCS action by many years. And I am honest about it, cause I have seen what is all classified of that bird. There are thousand of pages that are not for puplic at all, and I see no real chance, that anybdy gets a clearance for civil use only. It is more likely to produce for the Airfoces an eurofighter then we as civils will ever see it in DCS at a level of DCS. Anybody who produces a Eurofighter without clearance of all the Airforces that are involved might have to face with many many many years of prison. And I know how icky the german air force is about such topics.

 

About the F18E it is the same issue.

I fear, that in most cases nobody will ever get a clearance for a DCS standard Fighter that is at the 4 generation plus, unless you have proven some product to the industry and thier partners.

You should talk to the VEAO guys about what they can not do ... http://forums.eagle.ru/forumdisplay.php?f=209

[NineLine]

Ok guys, I am not sure this thread is useful anymore, until Coretex decides to expand on their comments that is all anyone really knows, all this guessing and such isnt doing anyone any good, and the topic is drifting from what this thread was intended, and that is to let everyone know Coretex is putting things on hold.

 

If you need to know anymore on it, the only ones that can answer that are the Coretex people.

[Flagrum]

Coretex Designs FB page gone?

 

Seems that now even their FB page is gone?