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

[sobek]

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.

 

Infinitesimally small, no. That would be an analytical solution. It uses a finite amount of sections, trust me.

 

Besides, if you throw just any geometry into X-Plane, it will yield a very crude flight model, certainly not anywhere near the fidelity you see in some of the well done add ons for X-Plane and certainly not close to the level you see in some DCS modules. For that you still need a manually crafted flight model.

[Fer_Fer]

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

 

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.

 

Didn't Coretex have a Superbug on the line?

last time i checked that was halted due to legal issues (guessing Boeing here)

[luckyhendrix]

One thing that could shift q lot of development resources to DCS is the advent of VR if DCS supports it better than other existing sims

 

Sent from my XT1072 using Tapatalk

[Automan]

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

 

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.

 

 

I've contacted Dino, cause it's a shame don't have such beauty in DCS...and ED surely will never ever think to do it...

ED must be flexible.

In DCS some countries are still uncovered, and simmers want to fly and combat for their own country.:joystick:

[Drag0nWIng]

Does dino developed any commerce module for fsx? As I remember all of his module is free, and he won't have legal issues for his project, it's totally different with commercial module, how you guys compare them. It's funny to see the consumer start to blame the business rules of producer, the only problem for ED is just they didn't build the aircraft module which you guys like and give you guys a module which they can reached highest flexible level, did they do anything wrong? hehe.

 

Matthew 20: 13-15

13 But he answered one of them and said, ‘Friend, I do thee no wrong. Didst thou not agree with me for a penny?

14 Take that which is thine and go thy way. I will give unto this last, even as unto thee.

15 Is it not lawful for me to do what I will with mine own? Is thine eye evil, because I am good?’

Edited February 14, 2016 by Drag0nWIng

[Automan]

Yes Dino founded India Alpha Echo Foxtrot, and now at least 2 product are commercial payware (F-35 and another extension for P3D) and selled on Simmarket at a reasonable price. So you're wrong.

[SkateZilla]

Didn't Coretex have a Superbug on the line?

last time i checked that was halted due to legal issues (guessing Boeing here)

 

Incorrect:

I've put development on hold due to a job promotion requiring more of my free time. Hopefully in the upcoming weeks I can settle down, and find some more free time to work on DCS modules. -Chris Head

[Darkwolf]

Tin foil hat ON

 

And what if Coretex excuse is just a placeholder to cover something more serious and not disclosable ? :D

[NeilWillis]

I have a hunch that the absentee developers will eventually have to start working in DCS World when it starts to snowball, and the masses of flight simmers end up using DCS because it is simply light years ahead of other platforms.

 

It's just a matter of time, and further expansion of the environment. They may not want to yet, but they'll come around if they're serious about hi-fidelity modelling. If they're happy just churning out inaccurate incomplete poorly modelled stuff, then will we really miss them?

[sobek]

The question is, how big of a market is there, really. DCS can only snowball if there's a huge unreached market potential.

[Jacks]

Agreed. DCS could,reach a lot more customers if they offered something unique and attractive. In my opinion I think the WW2 scenario has the greatest following worldwide and so development of the 1944 map and modules would bring more people to the game and a multicrew heavy bomber with a suitably large map would be unique and offer WW2 simmers something that currently not available.

 

I can understand why many devs assess developing for DCS as a risk given the overall control held by ED.

[King_Hrothgar]

Agreed. DCS could,reach a lot more customers if they offered something unique and attractive. In my opinion I think the WW2 scenario has the greatest following worldwide and so development of the 1944 map and modules would bring more people to the game and a multicrew heavy bomber with a suitably large map would be unique and offer WW2 simmers something that currently not available.

 

I can understand why many devs assess developing for DCS as a risk given the overall control held by ED.

 

It's probably true that WW2 has the greatest fanbase, the problem is there is nothing new or unique about WW2 or MP multicrew with WW2 bombers. I can go do that right this instant in two other current (or reasonably current) generation high fidelity combat flight sims if I so desire.

 

To get more developers here, DCS needs to show itself to be a more profitable platform than the others. There are things ED could possibly do to make DCS more appealing to additional developers. Addressing some of the concerns by developers like VRS would help. However, I think the biggest thing is simply getting the user base numbers up. The trick there is offering things the overall flight sim community will go nuts for which, due to technical limitations, can't be properly modeled on other platforms. There are a few aircraft that fit that description well. One noteworthy example is the F-14 currently in development. Throw a few youtube ads up alongside the top gun 2 trailer (when they make one) and you might very well break DCS's servers. And I'm not an F-14 fanboy, it isn't on my wishlist at all but I do recognize how incredibly popular it is.

[7rooper]

I think the DCS platform is very profitable for a 3rd party developer. Many customers have bought modules just by supporting the developers and not for being very fond of that plane. In my case I've bought planes I don't even like that much just for seizing the bargains in some sales and because I feel happy seeing a new release. In fact, I see that only jn this platform the presales and betas are welcomed something not popular in other flight simulators. Besides, here you can charge $60 for a new release where in other platforms are typically $40 to $50. It seems like DCS customers are more... wealthy ;)

[lanmancz]

Also Dovetail recently announced their upcoming 64bit, DX11 capable flight sim platform which can take some wind out of DCS sails. Unless it's complete rubbish I would think that after FSX sunset the 3rd party devs would continue to develop for this platform as it should be based on FSX, so perhaps it may be easier to update their existing products to this new platform. Although I fly with DCS and Xplane I will certainly keep an eye on this one because the age and lack of future platform development were my reasons not to invest into FSX at all and they are promising to keep the new platform alive for years to come.

Edited February 15, 2016 by lanmancz

[Phantom88]

It's probably true that WW2 has the greatest fanbase, the problem is there is nothing new or unique about WW2 or MP multicrew with WW2 bombers. I can go do that right this instant in two other current (or reasonably current) generation high fidelity combat flight sims if I so desire.

 

To get more developers here, DCS needs to show itself to be a more profitable platform than the others. There are things ED could possibly do to make DCS more appealing to additional developers. Addressing some of the concerns by developers like VRS would help. However, I think the biggest thing is simply getting the user base numbers up. The trick there is offering things the overall flight sim community will go nuts for which, due to technical limitations, can't be properly modeled on other platforms. There are a few aircraft that fit that description well. One noteworthy example is the F-14 currently in development. Throw a few youtube ads up alongside the top gun 2 trailer (when they make one) and you might very well break DCS's servers. And I'm not an F-14 fanboy, it isn't on my wishlist at all but I do recognize how incredibly popular it is.

:thumbup:B I N G O:thumbup:

 

If LNS can bring the same quality to The upcoming F4U/F-14/Iwo Jima Map they've provided in their Mig then I really feel The casual flight Sim Community will sit up and take notice of The High Fidelity that DCS Provides.This coupled with Carrier Ops in a "REAL" Combat Sim and The dedication to The Oculas Rift,VR Environment are keys to The Flight Sim Future.

Edited February 15, 2016 by Phantom88

[lanmancz]

F4U/F-14/Iwo Jima/Carrier Ops/The Oculas Rift,VR Environment ... The casual flight Sim Community will sit up and take notice

 

I don't think these would matter too much to a 'casual' player. In my opinion the same barriers still remain in DCS and probably will remain even in these new products (apart from the very steep learning curve of any DCS module). Like for example for a casual player is a major PITA just to set up controls in DCS, and you have to do it for each plane and often when update comes you have to do it all over again, fantastic! If DCS wants to attract more casual players it should provide a much slicker experience, with presets for the most common hotas setups (not the current useless default mapping that you just spend more time deleting before you map your own). Plus a new player has no clue what to map in the first place so a proper preset is essential (perhaps even a control mapping tutorial mission for each aircraft that would allow you to map the essential controls during the mission with some explanatory commentary, you know to make it more fun, not tedious). Also you have to ease in the casual player, not flood him with tons of manuals before he can even get off the ground, much better tutorials would be needed. Also more lower fidelity modules. Casual players also expect more cinematic (and fun!) experience which is often in sharp contrast against a dry simulation scenario. Also despite everyone's best efforts the campaigns and missions in DCS are often a bit wonky and there are not many single missions available (in fact none built-in). I don't see this changing anytime soon. Perhaps some Steam Workshop or ED User files in-game integration would help in this department, Arma3 does this very well - hundreds of well made missions are just a click away.

 

I'm not complaining, I don't care what the casual players think and I like the sandbox (although I admit it often can get tedious that even I am not in a mood for DCS), but these are just my observations when I try to teach DCS to other people - even if they show mild interest in the beginning they often give up and drift away after hitting a few of these bumps. I think this is also in general why flight sims are not as popular as they used to be - none of the current flight sims (that I'm aware of) does the user experience part right in my opinion.

Edited February 15, 2016 by lanmancz

[SkateZilla]

Also Dovetail recently announced their upcoming 64bit, DX11 capable flight sim platform which can take some wind out of DCS sails. Unless it's complete rubbish I would think that after FSX sunset the 3rd party devs would continue to develop for this platform as it should be based on FSX, so perhaps it may be easier to update their existing products to this new platform. Although I fly with DCS and Xplane I will certainly keep an eye on this one because the age and lack of future platform development were my reasons not to invest into FSX at all and they are promising to keep the new platform alive for years to come.

 

Microsoft Flight 2.0, lol

[Darkwolf]

I don't think these would matter too much to a 'casual' player.

 

Actually, it does.

 

A good volume of those players end up trying upper level sooner or later. I see a lot of Warthunder people switching to more serious things like DCS or IL2

[SkateZilla]

I dont think a "casual" player is gonna drop $600 for a Rift Unit... let alone the hardware to run it.

[rrohde]

Microsoft Flight 2.0, lol

 

Agreed!

[King_Hrothgar]

Microsoft Flight 2.0, lol

 

Let's hope not. FSX with modern flight modeling and hardware support would be a nice addition to our little hobby. But we'll have to see, I haven't paid any attention to that project so far.

 

Actually, it does.

 

A good volume of those players end up trying upper level sooner or later. I see a lot of Warthunder people switching to more serious things like DCS or IL2

 

Very true. I'm an old hand at CFS's but I played WT for a bit while waiting for BoS to come out. A lot of people I flew with there ended up moving to RoF and BoS. WT may not appeal to us much, but it is a great introductory to flight sims for people who haven't played one before.

 

I dont think a "casual" player is gonna drop $600 for a Rift Unit... let alone the hardware to run it.

 

No kidding, the hardcore won't either for the most part. An OR doesn't do you much good if you can't pay rent.:doh: Between the hardware and the OR itself, they priced themselves far outside the mainstream gamer market.

[BlackLion213]

A lot of good points in this discussion, but do we really need a lot more 3rd parties? On the surface, it seems appealing to have a huge cadre of people working on DCS projects. However, if the market share is too small, these 3rd parties won't be able to sustain themselves and things will fizzle.

 

I think that DCS has a large number of pending projects at the moment, both among 3rd parties and Eagle Dynamics. As a platform, DCS is just starting to show what it can do with new maps, new eras, new aircraft, true multi-crew, and carrier operations. Once these new features are out and working, more people will take notice and consider developing for the platform. Even as a player, I was planning to wait till DCS2, the Hornet, and carrier ops were released before trying out DCS....but the announcement of the Tomcat changed all of that!

 

Also, having the diversity of 1940s-modern combat aviation under one program is a big advantage, I think. As a user (and not a sophisticated computer user) having one program with excellent graphics, consistently high-quality modules, and a consistent user interface is an advantage. I much prefer that to using 4 different programs for different eras and aircraft types. One of the things that annoyed me about FSX/P3D when I was starting: I never knew what to expect from an add-on aircraft. Some were very high-quality, others bore no resemblance to the aircraft they claimed to simulate. Having a consistently high-standard (among finished modules at least) is a big selling point for me. Otherwise, you find an aircraft that you like while searching for P3D add-ons, then do a bunch of research and realize that it's no good. I don't like that much...

 

:thumbup:B I N G O:thumbup:

 

If LNS can bring the same quality to The upcoming F4U/F-14/Iwo Jima Map they've provided in their Mig then I really feel The casual flight Sim Community will sit up and take notice of The High Fidelity that DCS Provides.This coupled with Carrier Ops in a "REAL" Combat Sim and The dedication to The Oculas Rift,VR Environment are keys to The Flight Sim Future.

 

I also think this post captures most of the issues:

 

It's probably true that WW2 has the greatest fanbase, the problem is there is nothing new or unique about WW2 or MP multicrew with WW2 bombers. I can go do that right this instant in two other current (or reasonably current) generation high fidelity combat flight sims if I so desire.

 

To get more developers here, DCS needs to show itself to be a more profitable platform than the others. There are things ED could possibly do to make DCS more appealing to additional developers. Addressing some of the concerns by developers like VRS would help. However, I think the biggest thing is simply getting the user base numbers up. The trick there is offering things the overall flight sim community will go nuts for which, due to technical limitations, can't be properly modeled on other platforms. There are a few aircraft that fit that description well. One noteworthy example is the F-14 currently in development. Throw a few youtube ads up alongside the top gun 2 trailer (when they make one) and you might very well break DCS's servers. And I'm not an F-14 fanboy, it isn't on my wishlist at all but I do recognize how incredibly popular it is.

 

I am a casual computer person/sim-er, in that I don't have much of any experience with computer games, computer operations, and I don't know how to trouble-shoot most software/hardware interface problems too well. That said, I found DCS to be very user friendly for controls compared to P3D or Rise of Flight. The only issue with DCS and a new module is that it assigns all of the control axes to all of my controls (control stick, throttle, and rudder pedals). Deleting those takes 2 minutes and the rest is personalized anyway - so I don't mind deciding that stuff myself.

 

But I agree that there is a missed opportunity for DCS, they might benefit from more advertising and to audiences beyond the typical computer gamer.

 

I didn't play computer games/sims at all till January 2015 (not a single one - last time was 1998-99 with Jane's F-15 and a few quick tries of LOMAC in 2002-3). I was under the impression that flight-sims were dead....there was no media to convince me otherwise. What happened was that I was looking for a Tomcat takeoff video on youtube and stumbled onto a tutorial for the Aerosoft Tomcat - how to recover from compressor stalls, flat spin, etc. My jaw dropped! The 3D model looked amazing, interactive cockpit, excellent flight dynamics (per reviewers). I bought my first desktop in 7 years, a Thrustmaster Warthog, rudder pedals, and P3D just to try it out. I wasn't disappointed!

 

However, as good as I thought that was, DCS was a whole order of magnitude better (1.2.16 is what I started with) and now I barely touch P3D. The MiG-21 was so far beyond anything I had experienced before and so much better than I ever thought a desktop simulation could become. Now I own all the modules (except the Hawk - waiting the the EFM and the SFM FC3 aircraft).

 

I think there is a good number of people who love aviation (like me), don't play computer games much or at all, but would love to fly a flight sim of DCS caliber to experience their favorite aircraft (or just fighters in general). Aviation is still popular with many people of all ages, but doing it for real is quite costly (or impossible for things like carrier ops or anything resembling ACM with another aircraft) - so the flight simulation has a good opportunity to address this need. But people need to know that it exists!

 

One noteworthy example is the F-14 currently in development. Throw a few youtube ads up alongside the top gun 2 trailer (when they make one) and you might very well break DCS's servers. And I'm not an F-14 fanboy, it isn't on my wishlist at all but I do recognize how incredibly popular it is.

 

When the Tomcat and Hornet are out, I think DCS would benefit from an aggressive advertising campaign to target Aviation enthusiasts - things like King Hrothgar mentioned, youtube ads connected to aviation videos, google advertisements, etc.

 

I've owned the A-10C for 9 months, but only took 2-3 flights in it (averaging 5 minutes). I was not a A-10 fan prior to DCS, but this trailer convinced me to start the training modules and really learn to fly it:

 

[ame]

[/ame]

 

 

I can't imagine what I would have done if I'd seen a video of this quality for the Tomcat or Hornet, with no knowledge of DCS, while searching the internet. Well....probably what I did for P3D! :D

 

So...I agree that DCS needs more fans to facilitate for 3rd party developers. I really believe that more users will come with more awareness and not just advertising to traditional computer gamers.

 

-Nick

Edited February 15, 2016 by BlackLion213

[Jacks]

Do we need more 3rd parties? I certainly think so! One of DCS' strengths is also a weakness in that although it caters for many scenarios, each scenario is somewhat under developed with sufficient aircraft. Just look at how many aircraft types are available for CLoD and BoS and yes I know that the DCS modules achieve a higher level of fidelity and greater level of accuracy. But sadly players are going to want to fly in a well developed environment for their era of choice with a good variety of aircraft, vehicles, ships and maps. So although on a macro level DCS outperforms all other sims, on the micro level (I.e each era) it cannot compete in terms of variety and complete environment development - yet!

 

More developers would help alleviate this. Not all developers will be competing with each other as they will develop for the era or aircraft type they are interested in with some focused on the WW2 scenario, some on vintage jets, another on early naval jets, some on helicopters and other on modern jets etc etc. So what we will see is not a saturation of the market but rather a padding out each of the eras and development of each scenario. What is more, ED's overall control of modules and developers although restrictive will prevent over saturation and promote targeted development.

Edited February 15, 2016 by Jacks

[NineLine]

Tin foil hat ON

 

And what if Coretex excuse is just a placeholder to cover something more serious and not disclosable ? :D

 

*knocks your tinfoil hat off*

 

Speak in fact, or don't speak ;)

[Fer_Fer]

*knocks your tinfoil hat off*

 

Speak in fact, or don't speak ;)

 

well their website is offline as well. So i am guessing its something more then just on hold...