IP ''land grab'' vs planned development

[Mars Exulte]

Discussing the projected aircraft lists amomg friends, one of them used the term of an IP land grab =) Basically, when ED opened the doors to 3rd parties, it started a free for all where everyone grabbed up utterly random licenses with little or no thought to practicality.

 

However, it does seem to be that DCS would benefit dramatically if the assorted developers would sit down together and work out areas of responsibility and specific lists of aircraft. By that I mean focusing on specific eras and 'counterpart' aircraft for each selection.

 

As it is, the lists of aircraft resemble a small child running through a toy store grabbing things off the shelf at random, including prototypes and aircraft that are so new it would be extremely difficult to have access to any reliable information on them, much less viable counterparts.

 

Disclaimer, I realise licensing can cause havoc with this sort of thing. However, if it's impossible to produce viable counterparts for aircraft, or useful variants of those aircraft, it's probably better to forego them altogether.

 

Basically, I'm saying, from a development and business standpoint, don't treat this as an opportunity to make your dream plane or pet project. In order for the platform as a whole to be successful this stuff needs to make sense and all fit together. While there are certainly large chunks of this stuff coming in that do, there are a number of projects so far out there, one wonders how they got approved.

[Rangi]

I think you have the wrong feeling. I don't see any 3rd party developers doing what you alledge, can you point to any examples to educate me? I see developers developing aircraft that they have have the access to the detailed information for and the interest in developing. Also they have to start somewhere to get a time period / scenario going, the gaps will have to be filled in in time. When it takes a few years to develop an aircraft, it may seem like they don't fit together, but in the long term we will get the gaps filled. Also I don't think we should force devs to develop aircraft they are not interested in just because it will flesh out someone's wishlist.

 

ps. I don't really know if any of this is true, it's just my feelings.....

[NeilWillis]

Another factor is that ED only allow developers to get a license to produce items if they can show they are viable.

 

As stated elsewhere, the projects are chosen from a large number of factors, far more relevant than having something to fight against on equal terms. Yes, it is something to be aware of, but primarily, the choice is based on a lot of other matters too. For example, there are a large number of training aircraft because they make an ideal way to open the door to developing for DCS World given their less complex demands on coding. But every one of those developers are working on their next generation stuff.

 

Also, who except ED actually knows what other projects are already underway? The days of developers being open about their plans is sadly over, and we all know why they reached that situation.

 

Given time, there will be fewer and fewer gaps, but for now, you just have to accept things for what they are. This is a long game given that each module costs a huge amount of time and resources, plus licensing from the owners of the intellectual rights, the accessibility of data and many other things.

 

Plus, how would you like to be told what you can or can't do with what is basically a step forwards from your hobby? You can of course gather together a team with the relevant skills and go ahead and apply to ED to start work on what you think is the right choice of subject matter. Of course, we won't agree with you, but that's life my friend!

[cthulhu68]

I agree that DCS has a kind of eclectic assortment of aircraft. Adding some more era appropriate maps could help make more sense of our current roster.

[shagrat]

The big misconception is that DCS is about "era appropriate maps" or "well balanced opposition's aircraft".

It is not!

Actually the goal is to provide a sandbox with a growing range of maps from different eras and time periods, but Normandy for example was mainly focused for the Kickstarter disaster someone produced... Where ED kindly stepped in to safe the day.

 

When it comes to modules, I only read and heard that the focus is realism, enthusiasm and love towards the modeled aircraft and availability of resources, such as construction plans, charts, details or access to interior etc.

 

Not once did I notice a developer saying "Hey, we make a XYZ as a good opponent for the ABC!"

 

The wish for balance is coming from the desire to play "games".

 

I've read in a signature a statement that reflects the reality of conflict pretty good, it was along the lines: "If you find yourself in a fair fight, your tactics suck!" ;)

[probad]

agreed, frankly the concept of balance is a fallacious construct that amounts to nothing more than a blank check to pass changes when no other basis can be found.

 

as i understand it dcs is about fidelity first, so we take what we can get in terms of license and data availability, and any sort of theater coherence after that is a luxury.

Edited May 20, 2017 by probad

[jcookeusa]

I'll just add that I, for one, really enjoy the wide variety of aircraft (and 2, soon to be 3, maps). I guess it's true that some aircraft don't really have appropriate adversaries, but honestly, I almost always just go for free-flights with no threats. :)

 

I know it's "Digital Combat Simulator", but I really do rarely even attempt combat. DCS is the best flight simulator I've ever experienced (and that goes back to the old FlightSim 2.0 days in the 80's). I buy almost all the modules simply because I love flying them.

 

Anyway, there certainly wouldn't be any harm in working to fill in appropriate theatres of war (maps, contemporaneous aircraft), but it's not needed from at least this one customer's perspective. Please just continue providing these amazingly well simulated aircraft and maps!

 

Thanks!

Justin

[Revelation]

A lot of inaccuracies in your post.

 

Discussing the projected aircraft lists amomg friends, one of them used the term of an IP land grab =) Basically, when ED opened the doors to 3rd parties, it started a free for all where everyone grabbed up utterly random licenses with little or no thought to practicality.

This is simply not true. Several third party Devs simply created a wishlist of aircraft they'd like to create at some point. No where did it state that they had a license or were reserved a certain module.

 

However, it does seem to be that DCS would benefit dramatically if the assorted developers would sit down together and work out areas of responsibility and specific lists of aircraft. By that I mean focusing on specific eras and 'counterpart' aircraft for each selection.

No. I'd like to see Devs develop aircraft that they are passionate about and will put in the time into the authenticity of the module.

 

As it is, the lists of aircraft resemble a small child running through a toy store grabbing things off the shelf at random, including prototypes and aircraft that are so new it would be extremely difficult to have access to any reliable information on them, much less viable counterparts.

This simply isn't based on any factual information and it is entirely your personal opinion.

 

Disclaimer, I realise licensing can cause havoc with this sort of thing. However, if it's impossible to produce viable counterparts for aircraft, or useful variants of those aircraft, it's probably better to forego them altogether.

No. So you would rather not have any third parties then at all as you would inevitable restrict them out of the market. You would further hinder the development of DCS as whole with your bad thought process.

 

If the above was the case, we would still be waiting on a DCS level counterpart to the A-10C. Further, the F/A-18C would have to be scrapped as there is not a DCS level counterpart. So the F-14A/B would have to be scrapped as well. The Viggen would not have been produced and what; so you're basically stating that Leatherneck/Heatblur studios should have never formed?

 

Basically, I'm saying, from a development and business standpoint, don't treat this as an opportunity to make your dream plane or pet project.

You are absolutely wrong.

 

In order for the platform as a whole to be successful this stuff needs to make sense and all fit together. While there are certainly large chunks of this stuff coming in that do, there are a number of projects so far out there, one wonders how they got approved.

No. For this to work, ED and third party Devs need to create modules that people want to buy. That is how this all works. Just because you don't understand simply economics does not mean that any third party Dev should lose money or close their doors because you are incapable of creating scenarios in a Mission Editor that makes sense.

[BlackLion213]

Discussing the projected aircraft lists amomg friends, one of them used the term of an IP land grab =) Basically, when ED opened the doors to 3rd parties, it started a free for all where everyone grabbed up utterly random licenses with little or no thought to practicality.

 

I can see why someone would take this perspective and I have wondered the same at times.

 

However, there is more planning in the background and both the 3rd parties (most of them) and ED are thinking about how it all fits together. The problem is that most of these projects are very nascent and the next steps aren't being discussed. Detailing the roadmap has led to strife in the community at times since those who are not interested in the project will view it as a waste while others can't believe it isn't done yet. As such, we get only a glimpse of the next step and the end point can be difficult to visualize. DCS WWII is the perfect example - by the end of the year with the Normandy map out and the asset pack quite complete, it will be an awesome and complete experience for the WWII birds that spent the last 3-4 years totally out of place and seemingly a distraction from "real projects".

 

One thing I can say, ED is actually very selective about licenses and doesn't allow 3rd parties to simply say they want to do a project and grant exclusive rights. ED was less selective in the past, but now they won't grant contracts for projects that are down the line (like set to start after 2 others are completed by the same 3rd party) or things that are totally out of left field.

 

There are unannounced modules that will be perfect compliments to other pending modules (not necessarily opponents mind you, but complimentary aircraft) and there are other components like map and AI that are on the way for modules that seem like outliers currently. But when a full DCS module takes 3-4 years and the accessories (map and AI) take another couple years, the full project simply takes a long time to realize. During that period, things may not make sense.

 

ED is also very tight lipped about future projects and now seem to focus their announcements on what is next (like Normandy currently), but there are hints. Wags' stream from March 2017 had a module tile labeled "DCS F-15C" which is notably distinct from "F-15C for DCS world" and the regular F-15C tile that was next to it. Wags has proven to be pretty deliberate with his hints and this was the same hint that lead to the realization of the F-5E. Right now, ED seems pretty focused on either modern or WWII and both make great sense in the context of their existing work.

 

Similarly, Razbam is creating the AV-8B that matches the modern DCS timeframe perfectly and adding ship AI to compliment it. Heatblur is creating a new Forrestal class carrier and such for the F-14 and has hinted at more. Belsimtek isn't talking right now, but I have little doubt that they will make a good decision concerning their next module and eventually I hope to have a theater/AI for the F-86/MiG-15 as well.

 

VEAO's plan doesn't make sense to me....but maybe something will change my mind someday.

 

-Nick

[Mars Exulte]

I see a number of people misunderstood, such as the fellow talking about a DCS counterpart to A-10C... Additionally the simulation or clicky level of the aircraft is irrelevant.

 

My point was not that each individual aircraft has an exact counterpart, but that the incoming aircraft actually fit together, at least in clumps, which at present many of them do not, at least that are projected or being 'planned'. Whether in approximate tech, era, capability, whatever. They need to group up in viable 'clumps' that work well together.

 

Also, virtually every post on these forums boil down to personal opinion. I realise people here will buy literally everything and anything...

 

But yes, from a gameplay standpoint ''balance'' is indeed important. And no, that is not subjective. That is factual. While this is a 'flight sim' yes it is a COMBAT flight sim, and that is generally the focus. Regardless of the fact that not everyone plays it that way.

 

Case and point, bringing in a F-22 would doubtless be cool, but it would also be conpletely unopposable. It has no viable counterpart (yes, PAK-FA, etc, my point is as it stands) and there are no viable systems in game that couldecen legitimately threaten it. It would, in effect, be untouchable. And yes, that sort of thing matters.

 

I already mentioned licensing can and does cause issues, as does availability of information. That is why I said if certain aircraft are non-viable from a GAMEPLAY perspective, skip pver them and focus on stuff that IS.

 

A good example is the Ho-229 that is being worked on. While an interesting aircraft, it's a prototype (in the very literal sense) and has no real place, either in Korea or WWII. It's an interesting aircraft, but it's a bizarre choice for a study sim. It's just 'there'.

 

Anyway, it doesn't matter, they'll all do as they please, and I figured most the people here would argue against anything that might be interpreted as 'not making this or that aircraft'.

[Revelation]

I see a number of people misunderstood, such as the fellow talking about a DCS counterpart to A-10C... Additionally the simulation or clicky level of the aircraft is irrelevant.

And you miss my point. We would still be awaiting the A-10C as a counterpart for the KA-50 would need to have come first. Additionally FC3 was NOT going to get added to DCS initially. So there goes your other point.

 

 

But yes, from a gameplay standpoint ''balance'' is indeed important. And no, that is not subjective. That is factual. While this is a 'flight sim' yes it is a COMBAT flight sim, and that is generally the focus. Regardless of the fact that not everyone plays it that way.

Balance is achieved through mission design. I can create a very unbalanced mission with just A-10Cs on the BLUE side and nothing but KA-50s on the RED side.

 

 

 

Case and point, bringing in a F-22 would doubtless be cool, but it would also be conpletely unopposable. It has no viable counterpart (yes, PAK-FA, etc, my point is as it stands) and there are no viable systems in game that couldecen legitimately threaten it. It would, in effect, be untouchable. And yes, that sort of thing matters.

So now you contradict yourself. Case in point:

My point was not that each individual aircraft has an exact counterpart,

So which is it?

 

 

I already mentioned licensing can and does cause issues

You mentioned it incorrectly. You stated that it was a "grab" by third party devs, in which no licensing has been given to any aircraft or third party.

 

as does availability of information. That is why I said if certain aircraft are non-viable from a GAMEPLAY perspective, skip pver them and focus on stuff that IS.

That is up to the third party Devs to decide if they have access to enough information is it not? Why do YOU, whom has no financial interest in a Development Team, get to decide what THEY can or cannot do? Further, third party Devs must also demonstrate the level of knowledge and access to information to get an "official" third party status for a module.

 

A good example is the Ho-229 that is being worked on. While an interesting aircraft, it's a prototype (in the very literal sense) and has no real place, either in Korea or WWII. It's an interesting aircraft, but it's a bizarre choice for a study sim. It's just 'there'.

Then the KA-50 would fall into the same category since it never really saw combat. It was never bought or manufactured in large numbers and it was basically dropped in favor of the two-seat variant, the KA-52.

 

Ultimately, Devs should do what they want. Let the market decide what is good and what is bad.

 

Anyway, it doesn't matter, they'll all do as they please, and I figured most the people here would argue against anything that might be interpreted as 'not making this or that aircraft'.

No. People are arguing against your logic. For instance, I'd rather see ED forgo all WW2 stuff and focus on Gen3+ aircraft and time-era maps.

 

The difference, I realize that ED is a business that I have no financial interest in and they can simply ignore my desires and do what makes business sense to them.

[Kev2go]

The big misconception is that DCS is about "era appropriate maps" or "well balanced opposition's aircraft".

It is not!

Actually the goal is to provide a sandbox with a growing range of maps from different eras and time periods, but Normandy for example was mainly focused for the Kickstarter disaster someone produced... Where ED kindly stepped in to safe the day.

 

When it comes to modules, I only read and heard that the focus is realism, enthusiasm and love towards the modeled aircraft and availability of resources, such as construction plans, charts, details or access to interior etc.

 

Not once did I notice a developer saying "Hey, we make a XYZ as a good opponent for the ABC!"

 

The wish for balance is coming from the desire to play "games".

 

I've read in a signature a statement that reflects the reality of conflict pretty good, it was along the lines: "If you find yourself in a fair fight, your tactics suck!" ;)

 

 

One of the reasoning behind belsimtek's decision to create F5E actually, back when the posted the annoucement on thier site.

 

https://belsimtek.com/news/1553/

 

 

"Continuing working on the “famous” fighters’ line, we are especially concerned about game balance in DCS World. The best rival for the beloved by users MiG-21bis is an American fighter F-5E Tiger II , developed by the Northrop in the second half of the last century."

[shagrat]

One of the reasoning behind belsimtek's decision to create F5E actually, back when the posted the annoucement on thier site.

 

https://belsimtek.com/news/1553/

 

 

"Continuing working on the “famous” fighters’ line, we are especially concerned about game balance in DCS World. The best rival for the beloved by users MiG-21bis is an American fighter F-5E Tiger II , developed by the Northrop in the second half of the last century."

Ok. Wasn't aware of that one. So Belsimtek is the Company / 3rd Party to ask for "balanced gameplay" maybe they can provide the wish list fighters as proper opponents... If they get the data, etc.

[lazduc]

And my question.....why hasn't ED announce to the third party developers a list of models that they want? Then after getting responses from those dev's that have the required data, experience to develop that module chose that one who is appropriate.

 

Since ED supposedly has a long term plan for their vision of business profit and overall composition of the planned completed segments for each era and knows the aircraft/sandbox parts needed....well they can choose accordingly. They have knowledge, or at lease should have, the specific parts needed for that particular segment and the confidence, that third party will deliver......err to their specifications......and to be able to keep up with all the tweaks, fixes, changes, updates, upgrades and last but not least, the engine/graphics rewrites.

 

Laz

[Sryan]

That Horten 229 could have 'what if' dogfights against VEAO's Dehavilland Vampire and Gloster Meteor, alongside ED's very own Me-262 on the Normandy map. I can understand not everybody is a fan of 'what if' fictious scenarios. But the prospect of seeing how these early first gen jets would fight with the fidelity DCS offers is entertaining, atleast to me. At any rate, I'm pretty sure it will take some time before these jets see the light of day in DCS. Maybe another dev can pitch in and develop a Lockheed P-80 as well :)

Edited May 23, 2017 by Sryan

[Kev2go]

That Horten 229 could have 'what if' dogfights against VEAO's Dehavilland Vampire and Gloster Meteor, alongside ED's very own Me-262 on the Normandy map. I can understand not everybody is a fan of 'what if' fictious scenarios. But the prospect of seeing how these early first gen jets would fight with the fidelity DCS offers is entertaining, atleast to me. At any rate, I'm pretty sure it will take some time before these jets see the light of day in DCS. Maybe another dev can pitch in and develop a Lockheed P-80 as well :)

 

 

Doubt it. those who like fantasy and Proto or Blueprint designs are likely the epitomomy of Niche within an already Niche community.

 

In actuality the Gloster metoer mk3 opponent is not exactly been the Ho229 counterpart but to the ME262. It can have more legit what if fights with the Me262a1 ( which did see combat against bombers and escort Fighters) which already would have been far more likely because at least both were deployed in Europe. in 1945 a Meteor mk3 squadron was stained in Belgium and Were Proving Airfield defense. they had also hoped to lure German Me262s but none took the bait. Simply it was political rule that Meteors were not permitted to fly into German airspace. then they would have likely had encounters. Ho229 of any variant never saw official Adoption let alone front line Deployments or Combat. It was still a Prototype and one that was not yet Combat ready. And the Silly enough they choose the V4, which was not even a completed prototype. At least the V2 took flight...... but even then its engine crapped out.

Edited May 23, 2017 by Kev2go