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

[NineLine]

Here is my take on why you dont see more 3rd Parties, or why maybe they are not popping up as fast as we would like.

 

ED's FM's and systems are pushing the limits of realism, and not only that, they don't build something and sit back and say that is good enough, they are always striving for more, improving and evolving. The FM requirements are very demanding, you have seen that already. ED expects products baring their brand to measure up to the bar they set. Its not an easy road, but when you get there its worth it, for example the MiG 21.

 

Add on to all that, licensing requirements for the aircraft, research, the systems related to not only flight but combat, etc. Its a lot of work, and a 3rd Party has to be able to maintain during that development time. The A-10C was in development for 5 years, the F/A-18C will be about that much and then some. Its a big commitment. A 3rd Party has to be committed to the process we have seen a couple fail because they just didnt have it....

 

VRS wanted full access to ED's SDK while under no agreement. no way ED was giving that access. and just because a 3rd party has a license, it in no way obligates them to have to deliver the project. they can cancel if they feel they cannot deliver it.

 

We see a couple 3rd Parties starting to ramp it up. LNS has some cool things coming... even more than you have seen. RAZBAM had some initial growing pains, but I think this will only help improve turn around on future modules. Polychop is on the cusp of a big release of the first 3rd party help, VEAO is polishing up their products, and the future continues to brighten for them, this isnt including other things behind the curtain that might not be known yet...

 

At the end of the day, I would rather see a few top notch 3rd parties, than a wash of developers with no real set standard of quality. Thats not to say you dont get decent stuff in these other open sims, but its quality vs quantity... I'll take quality every time (and a long term commitment to keep pushing my hobby forward into the future).

Edited February 15, 2016 by NineLine

[NineLine]

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

 

That's on them, not ED.

[Fer_Fer]

That's on them, not ED.

 

my educated guess is that they got hit by a Cease and Desist notice from Boeing, especially since it was intended as payware. happened to quite a few modules in the past as well.

[Vincent90]

.....

Truly great post Nick, you hit the nail on it's head, although I disagree with your last argument about more exposure/advertising.

 

The problem with advertising is that the product isn't necessarily the same as the consumer is made to believe, which will happen a lot with DCS. It isn't War Thunder or even Il-2, which got plenty of exposure back in the day but still operated in a niche. And for every good thing about DCS, there are a lot of cons:

 

DCS is not very beginner-friendly and it takes a lot of hours to learn a module. Even for a basic HOTAS (a peripheral you won't use for any other game genre) and a single module you'll AT LEAST have to spend over 100 bucks. I'm not even mentioning headtrack and rudders, which IMHO are just as essential.

It isn't very exciting either. In the movies/on TV there is action every 5 minutes, you can forget about that in DCS. The WWII/Korea modules are even worse, which are nothing more than free-for-all plane vs. plane modules.

 

DCS is true nerd stuff, more comparable to a study course at school then anything else, and ED won't make any friends claiming otherwise. People that are interested in these kind of things will stumble on it anyway, just like you and me stumbled upon DCS.

 

By the way, do we NEED more developers for DCS? If we look at the release schedule we're looking at AT LEAST 16 modules this year, not even counting the carrier modules, maps and campaigns. Even for the most die-hard gamer, that should be more then enough to remain busy.

 

What IS missing however, are non-aviation modules.

 

It still beats me why ED isn't hiring the guy behind SAM Simulator (excellent Sim, very much recommended), or why they haven't resumed creating a tank module. There is always hope I guess....

[NineLine]

my educated guess is that they got hit by a Cease and Desist notice from Boeing, especially since it was intended as payware. happened to quite a few modules in the past as well.

 

Could be, obviously ED would expect a good working relationship with Boeing, they woudn't want anything that might hurt their own dealings in any way.

 

Another part of it is they had some team trouble, and were having trouble producing the quality needed. I think they just got in over their heads, the Super Bug is kinda like swinging for the fence. Might have been better to start off a little smaller.

 

When I first started talking to Yo-Yo its because I wanted to work on a module myself, a WWII one, and I still putter around with it, but talking with Yo-Yo all that time I decided it would be better to just put my research skills to work for ED and help them out where I could. I feel like I have a small piece of the 190 and the 109 I can call my own.

[kontiuka]

I feel like I have a small piece of the 190 and the 109 I can call my own.

Rudder? Trim tab? :D

[SkateZilla]

I doubt boeing said anything, more along the lines of the team dissolved and they didnt renew their space/domain.

 

as for the SDK, you technically dont need one to get started..

[BlackLion213]

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. But 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......

 

Don't get me wrong, I like the idea of more products coming out and more developers creating content. I just don't think that now is the time. As Vincent90 said, there are about 16 modules that "could" release in 2016 (most likely less), but there is A LOT pending. Plus, these releases will give sales data to ED which will help shape their future direction and decide the best points of emphasis. Good integration is essential for creating a complete sim-world for DCS. I think more people will join the fray once these new releases are out and (hopefully) successful.

 

Plus, I want our current 3rd Party developers to reap the rewards of their VERY hard work and willingness to be an early investor in DCS' future. Leatherneck and Razbam have both delivered excellent products (IMHO - with some WIP features), I want them to make money and stay in the business.

 

Truly great post Nick, you hit the nail on it's head, although I disagree with your last argument about more exposure/advertising.

 

The problem with advertising is that the product isn't necessarily the same as the consumer is made to believe, which will happen a lot with DCS. It isn't War Thunder or even Il-2, which got plenty of exposure back in the day but still operated in a niche.

 

DCS is true nerd stuff, more comparable to a study course at school then anything else, and ED won't make any friends claiming otherwise. People that are interested in these kind of things will stumble on it anyway, just like you and me stumbled upon DCS.

 

By the way, do we NEED more developers for DCS? If we look at the release schedule we're looking at AT LEAST 16 modules this year, not even counting the carrier modules, maps and campaigns. Even for the most die-hard gamer, that should be more then enough to remain busy.

 

What IS missing however, are non-aviation modules.

 

It still beats me why ED isn't hiring the guy behind SAM Simulator (excellent Sim, very much recommended), or why they haven't resumed creating a tank module. There is always hope I guess....

 

Thank you Vincent90, I hear what you are saying about advertising and it's risks. That said, it seems that Aviation Nerds are reasonably common! I've been surprised by talking to co-workers and friends that many have an interest, but are totally unaware of things like DCS.

 

You could be right, that very few of them would want the detail of DCS or are ready to make the capital investment. But most of these people that I mention really want to know what it was like to fly these aircraft, they aren't looking for an alternative to a typical video game, they are looking for an alternative to real flight.

 

In fact, I use DCS to supplement my driving hobby, not to replace other computer games. It's a great alternative since it taps into a lifelong interest, is very safe (from what I can tell), and can be played for 30-60 minutes to relax in an evening (compared to firing up the beast, driving to reasonable roads, dealing with seasonal weather/visibility issues, concerns about demanding drives when fatigued, etc...). I think others would do something similar. A lot of guys grew up thinking about fighter aircraft and becoming a pilot, much of that interest still persists, even if dormant.

 

We see a couple 3rd Parties starting to ramp it up. LNS has some cool things coming... even more than you have seen. RAZBAM had some initial growing pains, but I think this will only help improve turn around on future modules. Polychop is on the cusp of a big release of the first 3rd party help, VEAO is polishing up their products, and the future continues to brighten for them, this isnt including other things behind the curtain that might not be known yet...

 

At the end of the day, I would rather see a few top notch 3rd parties, than a wash of developers with no real set standard of quality. Thats not to say you dont get decent stuff in these other open sims, but its quality vs quantity... I'll take quality every time (and a long term commitment to keep pushing my hobby forward into the future).

 

This says it all. There is a bunch of stuff on the way! I think we should have this discussion next year and see how things have changed. Some of the 3rd Parties appear to be struggling at the moment (VEAO and Aviodev), but struggle and failure should not be viewed synonymously. Struggle is how you really learn, I think that both these developers will be looking much better at the end of this year...just my guess.

 

-Nick

[NineLine]

This says it all. There is a bunch of stuff on the way! I think we should have this discussion next year and see how things have changed. Some of the 3rd Parties appear to be struggling at the moment (VEAO and Aviodev), but struggle and failure should not be viewed synonymously. Struggle is how you really learn, I think that both these developers will be looking much better at the end of this year...just my guess.

 

-Nick

 

I feel bad that I didnt mention the cool things coming from Aviodev, sorry guys. Its also fair to note that those two teams are fairly new (VEAO a little older) to this as I understand, so they have to go through things like dialing in their team and making sure everyone they have onboard is in for the long haul. Sailing is starting to smooth, I think we will see the pace pick up.

[Buzzles]

Personally, I think once Razbam knock out a couple more modules and prove DCS to be a viable platform, we'll start seeing more interest from the various well known FSX devs.

No disrespect to the current 3rd party devs, but Razbam are more of a well known name thanks to their FSX roots and if they can prove the transition is doable, that'll certainly make people consider the platform.

 

LNS and Belsimtek have certainly proved their skills, but they're DCS only devs, currently without the wider reach. Polychop look to be promising as well. Hopefully VEAO and Aviodev can come good.

 

I do however feel the combination of LNS' F-14 and ED's F/A-18 over 2016/2017 will be a really big draw I think and will be the two modules that really pull a lot of new people, and therefore devs, into DCS.

Edited February 15, 2016 by Buzzles

[BlackLion213]

Personally, I think once Razbam knock out a couple more modules and prove DCS to be a viable platform, we'll start seeing more interest from the various well known FSX devs.

No disrespect to the current 3rd party devs, but Razbam are more of a well known name thanks to their FSX roots and if they can prove the transition is doable, that'll certainly make people consider the platform.

 

I do however feel the combination of LNS' F-14 and ED's F/A-18 over 2016/2017 will be a really big draw I think and will be the two modules that really pull a lot of new people, and therefore devs, into DCS.

 

I very much agree, in fact here are two articles from Jalopnik last year (which is really a car enthusiast site with some military aviation thrown in for diversity):

 

DCS World Is About To Become The Air Combat Sim Of My Dreams

 

F-14 Tomcat In The Works For The Most Elaborate Air Combat Sim Ever

 

Prior to this, there was just one Jalopnik article concerning DCS and it wasn't really promoting it.

 

Did A Decade Old Russian Flight Sim Predict The Invasion Of Crimea?

 

DCSW 2.0, NTTR, Straight of Hormuz, the Hornet, The Tomcat, and carrier ops are generating real interest from non-traditional sources. I have high hopes for the next couple of years.

 

-Nick

[Jacks]

At least throughout this discussion one enduring theme is that the future is bright for DCS with it potentially accessing new customer bases be it through the planned modern jets such as the F-18, F-14 and Harrier or through development of the 1944 Normandy Scenario. I know that it will take many years to achieve the level of immersion and detail that I hoping for in the WW2 scenario but during that time I am sure I will continue to enjoy aircraft I previously would not have considered trying such as the Mig-21 and Mi-8 and I guess that is the beauty of DCS, it's variety and the ability to play a plethora of eras and very different aircraft naturally broadens most people's sim tastes and experiences.

Edited February 16, 2016 by Jacks

[313_Nevo]

Even for a basic HOTAS (a peripheral you won't use for any other game genre) and a single module you'll AT LEAST have to spend over 100 bucks. I'm not even mentioning headtrack and rudders, which IMHO are just as essential.

I dont have HOTAS, HT or RUDDERS and I am enjoying DCS for few years now (MP also) :)

These are not necessary, what makes them necessary is the game design for some reason.

 

I think the beginners are all welcomed. They only need to accept the steep learning curve, thats all imho.

 

And more devs? I am OK with the actual number, which is actually growing, and thats the important thing.

[RoflSeal]

Yeah, single T.16000M can map most the controls you need in combat.