Why aren't there more developers creating aircraft for DCS??

[Jacks]

I think DCS is the most accurate simulator on the market and offers the highest level of fidelity plus it has ongoing development unlike many other sims. So why aren't more simulation developers developing for DCS?

 

I keep seeing some developers creating military aircraft for FSX and ask myself WHY? Surely there better suited to combat simulator.

 

Anyway I would be interested to hear why people think that developers producing military aircraft for FSX and P3D are not developing for DCS.

 

Jacks

[PanicMan15]

Really good question. I would really like to see some progress with more modules coming out. I really want that hornet to come out cause there is no "Professional" hornet that has all working systems and flys like the real thing in any simulator. Especially the Charlie version.

[kazereal]

Anyway I would be interested to hear why people think that developers producing military aircraft for FSX and P3D are not developing for DCS.

 

It is much easier and quicker to make something that passes for FSX which does not demand as much accuracy or functionality of flight model and various systems. So it is a cost thing as part at least.

[giei]

I think DCS is the most accurate simulator on the market and offers the highest level of fidelity plus it has ongoing development unlike many other sims. So why aren't more simulation developers developing for DCS?

I keep seeing some developers creating military aircraft for FSX and ask myself WHY? Surely there better suited to combat simulator.

 

Anyway I would be interested to hear why people think that developers producing military aircraft for FSX and P3D are not developing for DCS.

 

Jacks

 

Do you need more "forever in alpha/beta" modules?

[Jacks]

Why would they remain in beta or alpha forever. The likes of aerosoft or just flight are experienced developers and so I don't think would struggle to progres a module past the beta stage.

[hollywoodvillain]

It is much easier and quicker to make something that passes for FSX which does not demand as much accuracy or functionality of flight model and various systems. So it is a cost thing as part at least.

 

I disagree. The reason is because there are no licensing, contracts, or royalties to pay for developing for FSX.

[cichlidfan]

Why would they remain in beta or alpha forever. The likes of aerosoft or just flight are experienced developers and so I don't think would struggle to progres a module past the beta stage.

 

The question would be better asked of the various devs but my guess is the margins and volume for DCS aircraft are too small to be worth the time for most of them.

[Jacks]

I guess fsx also has a wider audience and so potentially more unit sales.

Edited February 12, 2016 by Jacks

[jcbak]

+1 exactly

[Hadwell]

in FSX you don't need to worry as much about the flight model being accurate, don't need to model radar and weapon systems accurately, basically anyone who can make or find a good 3d model and texture of a plane can make one for FSX...

 

DCS's planes need to meet a standard of quality in order to make it an official aircraft, though anyone can make a mod for dcs and put their own plane in just like FSX...

 

think about it this way, if ED just let anyone make an aircraft for it, like they do in FSX, then we'd have a repeat of the CFS2 days, where people had F4Fs that'd give the space shuttle climbing with its boosters at 80,000 feet a run for its money....

 

ED decides if there's enough accurate info, and if a plane/developer meets their standards, then accepts the 3rd party developer

 

FSX has no QA at all in any way.

Edited February 12, 2016 by Hadwell

[hollywoodvillain]

Heres an answer to op's question...

http://forums.vrsimulations.com/forums/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=16297&p=109556&hilit=Dcs#p109556

[SkateZilla]

I'll point out a few things:

-FSX is nearly 10 Years Old,

-FSX was open to external development since day one, and feature frozen since Gold/Acceleration, DCS has been open to 3rd party devs for about 3/4 yrs, and the code is constantly evolving and changing to add new stuff.

-Most studios have a significant set of data, templates and internal development tools for FSX.

-There's also development plugins and APIs for weapons and flight models.

-Most studios were able to import their FS2002/2004 Art assests and adjust it to work with FSX at first

-Converting Art Assets from FSX to DCS isnt as simple as choosing a different exporter, animations need to be converted along with materials.

[hollywoodvillain]

Show me an actual developer who says that fsx/p3d cannot develop an accurate flight model.

Edited February 12, 2016 by hollywoodvillain

[King_Hrothgar]

No FSX developer is going to publicly admit they can't make a decent flight model just as no developer here at DCS is going to admit SFM planes have a garbage flight model. They know it, we know it, but you will never see one of them admit it. In DCS's case, they are being swept away by PFM/EFM. In FSX, it will linger forever since FSX became a dead platform 10 years ago.

 

Back on topic, the reasons are simple:

1) MSFS has been around as an open platform since the 1990's or earlier, DCS opened to third parties only a few years ago.

2) DCS is harder to develop for, in addition to being new.

3) MSFS has a larger market share of overall flight simmers.

4) Microsoft doesn't take a massive sales commission like ED does (ED does support DCS though, so that's a fair trade imho).

5) Any idiot can release payware MSFS content, DCS stuff is vetted to a degree (not enough imho).

Edited February 13, 2016 by King_Hrothgar

[Steel Jaw]

Cause we the comumity give them way to hard of a time.

[Isegrim]

No FSX developer is going to publicly admit they can't make a decent flight model just as no developer here at DCS is going to admit SFM planes have a garbage flight model. They know it, we know it, but you will never see one of them admit it. In DCS's case, they are being swept away by PFM/EFM. In FSX, it will linger forever since FSX became a dead platform 10 years ago.

 

Back on topic, the reasons are simple:

1) MSFS has been around as an open platform since the 1990's or earlier, DCS opened to third parties only a few years ago.

2) DCS is harder to develop for, in addition to being new.

3) MSFS has a larger market share of overall flight simmers.

4) Microsoft doesn't take a massive sales commission like ED does (ED does support DCS though, so that's a fair trade imho).

5) Any idiot can release payware MSFS content, DCS stuff is vetted to a degree (not enough imho).

 

6) The overall Flight sim Community is still relativ small, even smaller is the DCS Community so sale numbers are also not on a high level.

[XeNoise]

I think DCS is the most accurate simulator on the market and offers the highest level of fidelity plus it has ongoing development unlike many other sims. So why aren't more simulation developers developing for DCS?

 

I keep seeing some developers creating military aircraft for FSX and ask myself WHY? Surely there better suited to combat simulator.

 

Anyway I would be interested to hear why people think that developers producing military aircraft for FSX and P3D are not developing for DCS.

 

Jacks

Because you need huge balls and mad programming/organizational/modeling/scientifical skills to create a dcs world module.

 

Fsx modules are a joke in comparison and way easier to create. So they will sell surely less, but it pays off because the work is maybe around 5% of the work which they would need to put in a dcs module.

[Toxe]

DCS market is probably too small and to make matters worse people are trained to wait for sales.

[Vedexent]

Show me an actual developer who says that fsx/p3d cannot develop an accurate flight model.

 

I don't think it's impossible to develop an accurate flight model in FSX, it's just that the nature of the type of modelling done in FSX makes it easy to create an inaccurate one.

 

I believe that FSX uses "lookup tables" rather than directly simulated physics modelling (like X-Plane's blade element theory).

 

If the table is really accurate and complete, then the model is accurate and complete, and the plane's behavior is accurate.

 

Publish an inaccurate table, and the flight model can be ludicrously broken and unrealistic.

 

Making an accurate and complete lookup table is hard, and requires a lot of calculation, research, and modelling.

 

Some companies that produce for FSX/Prepar3D are very good at creating accurate modelling.

 

Others ... not so much.

[lanmancz]

Cause we the comumity give them way to hard of a time.

 

I think this is very true. In my opinion there is a place for some lower fidelity models, especially in single player, if DCS wants to grow as a platform. I've been around for some years and I witnessed it several times. Remember the F35 and the uproar it caused on the forums ? Even Wags back then said that we'd be surprised how much info can be found on the plane but the community said no. I still think it might have been a fun, though not 100% realistic, plane for single player. For example apart from my high fidelity xplane stuff like FlightFactor I also have a couple of Carenado planes which are nice fun planes for times when I just want to fly around, do some sightseeing, perhaps practice navigation a bit and so on and I don't necessarily care at that point that the engine modeling does not take the limits into account (so nothing bad will happen if you mistreat your engines). Just my 2c.

Edited February 13, 2016 by lanmancz

[Drag0nWIng]

Okay, Let's assume ED open their sdk, then there are branch of company come to here and released module/DLC like Flight Simulator steam edition. I think there will be another thread said why they released those low accurate and overpriced module on dcsw!

 

Microsoft Flight Simulator X: Steam Edition

Downloadable Content For This Game

SHOWING 1 - 3 OF 76

Add all DLC to Cart

[Phantom88]

Heres an answer to op's question...

http://forums.vrsimulations.com/forums/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=16297&p=109556&hilit=Dcs#p109556

 

:(Damn,I was holding out hope for VRS and maybe Milviz to join The DCS 3rd Party Ranks:(

[7rooper]

Extracted from http://forums.vrsimulations.com/foru...it=Dcs#p109556

They only release it to developers who sign a pre-sales agreement, and that's what we find unacceptable. That puts them in a position to dictate terms before there's even a product, which is counter to all comparable game engines and/or development SDKs that I'm aware of.

 

We're interested when we can see the entire SDK and make an informed decision about whether we want to commit to such a project, without signing anything other than perhaps a standard NDA (at most). Further, the current setup allows ED to dictate who can and can't even see the SDK, much less develop and sell products based on it. By requiring that the developer state the type of project (e.g. what aircraft), one would assume they even give themselves the power to cherry pick features. For example if we were interested in doing a legacy Hornet, ED could and would deny the use of the SDK outright.

 

In essence, they have the power (whether or not they exercise it) to control which developers can use the SDK, what aircraft and features are modeled, and most likely also have the power to terminate use rights at any time, meaning (for example), if they decide they don't like us anymore, or wanted to build a directly competing aircraft, they could tell us we can't sell a product even if it's already been in development for months or years. That's not a gamble we can afford to take

I'm not against ED demmanding a pre-sales agreement with a portion of the sales profit for them. They deserve it, anyway. And, what's better, ED's distribution approach takes the piracy concern off the developer

What I don't really like and the reason many experienced developers like Dino Cattaneo (India Foxtrot) are not coming to DCS is that the SDK is not publicly available and ED's approval politics are really strict leaving you few options to choose in what aircraft you can develop. As far as I know if someone want to develop a Super Hornet that won't be allowed since it's going to direct compete with the legacy Hornet ED is already developing. The F-16 isn't allowed for third party development either.

Edited February 13, 2016 by 7rooper

[sobek]

I believe that FSX uses "lookup tables" rather than directly simulated physics modelling (like X-Plane's blade element theory).

 

Every sim uses lookup tables, even DCS. X-Plane does too. It is still impossible to solve the Navier-Stokes equations in realtime. Therefore you need to have the solutions precomputed. It does however not suffice to have one table covering the full (alpha, beta) space. You need separate tables for separate sections of the fuselage and control surfaces and you also need to model some interdependency effects between parts of the fuselage. That is what separates the men from the boys. ;)

[7rooper]

X-plane's blade element theory works even for not previously known geometry so no precomputed solutions here. You can create a x-shaped plane and the sim will slice it in infinitesimal pieces and calculate their acceleration, then these are integrated in speeds and finally integrated in positions in the world.

DCS does indeed use lookup tables