Wish List

[Silver_Dragon]

the problem is as follows:

 

- Strip away a engine with 10 + years of work (TFCTE / EDGE / ETC).

-'re Holding development (1 to X years) by having to adapt all your software (DCS: World and modules both internal and 3rd parties) to an engine that is unknown to you.

- Power losing military contracts and face a third-party payments that your company may not be able to cope for the time to make the change bankruptcy pitting them not only ED but all 3rd Parties.

- Possibly, having to start from scratch additional engine work, both in terms of systems, weapons, radar, etc..

- Try to solve the problems Incompatibility and limitations associated with using an external system.

- Require this external company, does not have the capabilities that engine, which will delay still more development.

 

I do not know if I explained well, but there is much that s forgiveness, for a dream that ED is gradually getting his way. Not by going to the easiest solution is to solve a problem, but you can create a situation that can become insurmountable.

Edited May 13, 2013 by Silver_Dragon

[-Demon-]

as I wrote...we are just dreaming and no reason to take that serious :) all you wrote is true. I guess many DCS users are not aware that ED is also producing those sims for real military simulations which we take an advantage from.

 

So again: Thanks ED for that god piece of software :)

 

I am wondering why it is so difficult to get the impression of height in DCS. In outerra it seems like you can predict 10cm of height. :p

 

Cheers

 

Demon

[Pnume]

the problem is as follows:

 

- Strip away a engine with 10 + years of work (TFCTE / EDGE / ETC).

-'re Holding development (1 to X years) by having to adapt all your software (DCS: World and modules both internal and 3rd parties) to an engine that is unknown to you.

- Power losing military contracts and face a third-party payments that your company may not be able to cope for the time to make the change bankruptcy pitting them not only ED but all 3rd Parties.

- Possibly, having to start from scratch additional engine work, both in terms of systems, weapons, radar, etc..

- Try to solve the problems Incompatibility and limitations associated with using an external system.

- Require this external company, does not have the capabilities that engine, which will delay still more development.

 

I do not know if I explained well, but there is much that s forgiveness, for a dream that ED is gradually getting his way. Not by going to the easiest solution is to solve a problem, but you can create a situation that can become insurmountable.

 

Sounds a bit dramatic to me but as -=Demon=-said we are more daydreaming than anything here.

 

I am no programmer (aprt from a few notions) but I guess it all depends on how the ED's engine is integrated and how the Outerra's works. It might not be that difficult. Or at least compared to making a new engine yourself.

 

I think that, overall, it is better to focus on what you do right (simulate in our case) and leave the other stuff to people who knows what they are doing in their field. I do understand the urge to "Do everyhting by yourself", it is fun, kind of, but it is rarely efficient.

 

I do hope though that ED will prove me uterly wrong.

Edited May 13, 2013 by Pnume

[hoochiekoo]

Gun should be auto active all the time since the gear up and inactive when gear down. Firing gun should be assign with another key rather than the same key with firing missile. Due to the head on merge sometime we may take a chance to fire gun to the incoming enemy in a second we merge without have to change weapon from missile to gun and back to missile again.

[Pnume]

If it is possible I haven't found how. Could we have the clickable cockpit and the mouse view at the same time. I mean without having to push a buton to switch between the 2? It makes no sense to me.

 

Also I happened to be unable to map the switch button on my mouse. Where it would be the most convenient.

[wildone_106]

I STILL wanna see some kind of wing tip trails, pressure clouds on the edge surfaces and I know you dont see it all the time but GOD..you should SOMETIMES. It just makes everything feel so sterile and that your flying thru nothing..well air is nothing but its also full of moisture and I dont care where you are..your gonna see it SOMETIMES.

[schkorpio]

If it is possible I haven't found how. Could we have the clickable cockpit and the mouse view at the same time. I mean without having to push a buton to switch between the 2? It makes no sense to me.

 

Also I happened to be unable to map the switch button on my mouse. Where it would be the most convenient.

 

 

yes - this is how RTS games work - when your cursor gets close to the edges of the screen it will move the view. but otherwise the cursor can be used for selecting/clicking.

 

no need for two modes

[wildone_106]

Why cant we see this in FC3?

 

Check out the wings..

 

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=74c_1370012197

[LostOblivion]

My thoughts on Lock On and Flaming Cliffs 3

 

Hi, everybody,

 

I do not understand the inconsistency of the Lock On product and its FC3 expansion. To me, it would only make sense if this expansion updated all aircraft at once, not discriminating between them. As it is now, all the aircraft in the Lock On have had an updated cockpit and external model, which is great, but the Su-33 and the MiG-29 are for some reason left out.

 

Logically, FC3 would be an overall improvement over the previous title, not focusing on specific aircraft tilting towards the ideal of "DCS", but lifting the whole face of the product in its entireness.

 

To me, FC3 should be a polished final product in the Lock On series of expansions, where all aircraft are of the same quality and standard. A platform that can then be used to universally take each aircraft out into a seperate DCS product, escaping the need to publish under Ubisoft.

 

Ideally, all FC3 aircraft would have simple flight models, giving ED a good reason to branch each of them out into their own DCS labeled product, with an AFM in early public betas, and fully simulated in the final product. I also strongly believe an early public beta release with many and small iterations is healthy.

 

Of course, ED has already chosen to add AFMs to the Su-25 and A-10A, which cannot be removed from the product.

 

I think it is great that ED plan to add AFMs to the F-15C and Su-27 and sell them as seperate products, but I believe this should be the first stage on the road to creating two fully fledged DCS products.

 

Start discussion!

Edited June 3, 2013 by LostOblivion

[71st_Mastiff]

:thumbup::thumbsup::clap::punk::clap_2:

[pepin1234]

you have open the Pandora's box :beer:. This thread will be send to wish list in 3', 2', 1' now!

Edited June 3, 2013 by pepin1234

[winz]

So instead of upgrading, what ED thought would be reasonable to update (6 DoF for Su-25, A-10A, Su-27, F-15C), they should left all aircraft in old 2D cockpits? So they all be equal.

Is that your train of though?

Oh, and Su-25 got AFM long before FC 3 (if I remember correctly, it was in FC 1), and A-10C is not even part of FC...

"Offer someone a finger and they take the whole hand" :)

[skouras]

well said man...

[pepin1234]

I told you :lol:

[LostOblivion]

Ah, I don't mind being put into a wish list thread.

 

So instead of upgrading, what ED thought would be reasonable to update (6 DoF for Su-25, A-10A, Su-27, F-15C), they should left all aircraft in old 2D cockpits? So they all be equal.

No, read my post again. I think they should add 6DOF cockpits and improved external models to all aircraft in FC3.

 

Oh, and Su-25 got AFM long before FC 3 (if I remember correctly, it was in FC 1)

I know.

 

and A-10C is not even part of FC...

"Offer someone a finger and they take the whole hand" :)

I ment A-10A, obviously.

 

My point is, there is only a short-term marketing reason why ED leaves out the Su-33 and MiG-29. On a long term reasoning, these should also be updated to match the rest of the quality that comes in FC3 for the product to be complete. My thoughts of course, but I know many here feel the same.

 

Another topic is the Su-25T which comes free with DCS World. From a marketing point of view, it doesn't make any sense that this is one of the aircraft that has not received an updated cockpit. Surely, a large part of the reason why ED offers a free DCS World is to showcase their product to convince the customer to buy more of their products. Doing so with an outdated cockpit model is a bad idea, which should be rectified.

Edited June 3, 2013 by LostOblivion

[pepin1234]

My point is, there is only a short-term marketing reason why ED leaves out the Su-33 and MiG-29.

 

I will tell you a simple and practice answer to this question: It is because they are not american planes, they are not in history channels and the people that love this planes have not enough money. Just take a look in the R-27 Missiles and R-77. So, who care the truth of the planes? :music_whistling:

[LostOblivion]

I will tell you a simple and practice answer to this question: It is because they are not american planes, they are not in history channels and the people that love this planes have not enough money. Just take a look in the R-27 Missiles and R-77. So, who care the truth of the planes? :music_whistling:

I agree, it is because these aircraft are niche in a game that is already niche itself. Spending time making them better probably goes unnoticed by 99 % of the people playing this game, so they don't. Nothing wrong with that, except degrading the quality of the game on a long term.

 

Analogy: If a grocery store has an inventory that covers 99 % of the items needed by a customer, and suddenly cuts it down to 90 %, they would save a lot of money for the next few months. But suddenly a customer needs an item in the missing 10 %. She would then have to go to the store next door to buy this item; parhaps she starts going there all the time instead, even for the casual items, just so she doesn't have to go to two places, even if it is more expensive. After a few months the first store starts losing customers just because they have a smaller inventory, they start losing money, more money than they saved earlier.

 

You sometimes have to offer more than what 90 % of the customers need, because otherwise you lose customers.

 

Not saying it is completely the same for ED, but it most likely occurs here as well. Everybody knows ED delivers niche. If they stop, they will lose customers.

Edited June 3, 2013 by LostOblivion

[GGTharos]

Some people make it sound like ED has totally dropped non-american hardware.

[FLANKERATOR]

Speaking of FC3, let's try to fill the US vs RUS scoreboard and see:

 

External model and 6DOF cockpit : F-15, A-10A, Su-25, Su-27--> Score : 2-2

Upcoming DCS modules in the making by ED (not 3rd party) : Su-27SM, F-15C--->score: 1-1

FINAL SCORE: 3-3 :) correct me if I'm wrong.

[wildone_106]

I just want some new freekin terrain Im gonna puke if I see more Crimea..

[IvanK]

MIG29 texture love ?

 

Any chance of some cockpit texture love for the MIG29 ?

 

A lot of us are implementing some amount of 6Dof either

editing the server.lua file ourselves or using PeterP's modified

view with neck file.

 

Using these mods reveals a texture hole in the 6 O,clock view

 

 

When the canopy is closed the rear canopy bulkhead is not drawn (as it

sits behind the non 6DOF seat). This same rear canopy bulkhead is there and visible when the canopy is in the open position. If the Bulkhead texture could be included when the canopy was closed then a much better limited 6DOF effect could be achieved.

 

In addition it would be nice if the texture black holes to the rear bulkhead

of the cockpit could have something added.

 

 

Pretty Please :)

[Kuky]

I can tell you this one won't be done by ED as this 6DoF mod for these non-3d pits is not supported by ED. I think ED said they won't enable 6 DoF for these pits because of non completed texture and rear part of the pit... so we'll need to wait until someone makes new MiG-29 external model and pit or better... a module

Edited June 4, 2013 by Kuky

[pepin1234]

Speaking of FC3, let's try to fill the US vs RUS scoreboard and see:

 

External model and 6DOF cockpit : F-15, A-10A, Su-25, Su-27--> Score : 2-2

Upcoming DCS modules in the making by ED (not 3rd party) : Su-27SM, F-15C--->score: 1-1

FINAL SCORE: 3-3 :) correct me if I'm wrong.

 

 

Maybe the 50 % or more of the People that have bought FC3 have others module too. The FC3, come with the same avionic since the first day, it is pathetic thinking that Keep this poor avionic will make the FC3 owners happy.

 

We are in DCS World so now this must be like that:

 

DCS World: Mig-31 good external model (Ru), Tarantul-class Corvette good external model (RU), F-18C good external model (US), Clase Oliver Hazard Perry good external model (US), Ticonderoga-class cruiser good external model (US). All the rest have a varied cuality but never like a good external model. So here we go: 2-3

 

FC3 module: Mixed aircrafts Su-25, Su-27, F-15, A-10A good external model. 2-2

 

Hardcores Sims: Ka-50 (RU), A-10C (US), Mustang (US), Huey (US). 1-3

 

(ru) 5-8 (us)

 

Future proyects:

 

ED DCS: Su-27 (RU), F-18 (US), F-15 (US). 1-2

3° Parties stable proyects announced: Mig-21bis (RU), Mi-8 (RU), Hawk (EN), all the rest are in unknown status. 2-1

 

(ru) 3-3 (us)

 

final result: (ru) 8-11 (us)

[FLANKERATOR]

final result: (ru) 8-11 (us)

 

Not a huge gap at the end of the day, don't you think?

Keep also in mind that 3rd party invest in whatever module they are qualified to make and in many cases related to what they have been working on in the past. ED wouldn't say "no thanks, it's Russian hardware turn now" to a talented 3rd party developer capable of delivering DCS standard product. From an ED internal development perspective, it's almost a perfect tie.

[pepin1234]

Not a huge gap at the end of the day, don't you think?

Keep also in mind that 3rd party invest in whatever module they are qualified to make and in many cases related to what they have been working on in the past. ED wouldn't say "no thanks, it's Russian hardware turn now" to a talented 3rd party developer capable of delivering DCS standard product. From an ED internal development perspective, it's almost a perfect tie.

 

 

You right, but the numbers are there :thumbup:

 

By the way. Every time I want to do a Ka-50 ship-landing I go direct to the blue side :D.