Black Shark news?

[Highwayman-Ed]

I biased as I'm a rotor head who's been masquerading as a Hog jockey for a couple of years now :D

 

Despite everything that has been said, I think this is a good approach, I just hope that DCS:BS isn't too far away. As a ground pounder, I spend 99% of my time flying co-op with my buddies, so having an opposing team isn't really that much of a problem for me with the KA-50. As long as the AI is as smart as we're all hoping it is, I'll be a happy bunny... and all the more so because UBI aren't involved...

[Witchking]

well....its pretty enticing...but also disappointing a little bit. I guess now we will be stuck using only a single chopper as a flyable. But well, I rather prefer having a NICE COHESIVE sim than cut and paste sim that would have been the result of BS as an addon.

 

lol! One thing though.... lol!

 

 

Heavily modified graphic engine? lol! Those explosions and fire still make me cringe. :p lol! Comeon ED.... you are doing all this...give us new damage effects... at the same time,... more investment to ensure that we get infantry in INITIAL release of DCS would be very very very welcome indeed. ;)

[Witchking]

Also lol.... the faq says the terrarin is a lot more highly detailed. Based on those shots...I don't see much of a difference.

 

Atleast ED...please get in contact with teh WONDERFUL mod makers who are makign new scenary mods.... the ground crew mods...atleast implement those in DCS.

[EvilBivol-1]

Not all mods are subject to official adoption because of various problems or inperfections which aren't acceptable for official support. They are wonderful as mods and highly appreciated and encouraged by the Devs, but are nevertheless mods and should stay that way.

 

DCS features higher resolution terrain mesh and textures, much denser populated areas and forests, new visual effects and other graphical improvements over Lock On. It's modified, not all new.

 

However, the last part of the DCS FAQ does mention:

We plan however to provide such features in our new simulation engine that is currently in development for later versions of DCS.

[EvilBivol-1]

Hope they hold true to their word on a 1.13 patch.

Just so there is no missunderstanding, the word was that ED is hoping for and evaluating the possibility of a patch. This hasn't changed.

[The_GOZR]

Yes the patch is coming here.. This is the one that matter now..

 

 

Thanks ED OOoops!! I mean GrandSurf !!

[Esac_mirmidon]

Man , your attitude is always so O_o..........

[Groove]

GOZR in first place stop trolling, please.

[RvETito]

..Thanks ED OOoops!! I mean GrandSurf !!

 

Jeez, how old are you? 12?

[jurinko]

Just put Su-25T into DCS and we are done - two strike mudmovers plus two attack helicopters. I would purchase Su-25T for the second time as did many times with IL-2 series.. Later maybe Cobra vs Hind and then - start adding fighters;)

[ALDEGA]

If I am wrong about the above then please tell me so, no one seems to battle too much with the DCS as a response to Ubi connection.

I agree about ED finally "getting rid" of UBI with DCS.

 

Remember that UBI would only allow ED to make up to 2 add-ons for LockOn.

After that it would be over, or they'd have to renegotiate with UBI...

[thereminqblank]

I hope that some of the fixed wing we already know can be added down the road through some effective legal tactics.

 

 

I hope I'm interpreting your question right: If ED are creating new aircraft from scratch for the DCS series, be it the Su-27, Su-25, etc, I don't see why it would have legal implications with UBI.

 

UBI don't own the rights to the aircraft. *gasp* or do they? :D

[192nd_Erdem]

Just put Su-25T into DCS and we are done - two strike mudmovers plus two attack helicopters. I would purchase Su-25T for the second time as did many times with IL-2 series.. Later maybe Cobra vs Hind and then - start adding fighters;)

 

Be aware current Su-25T is still way behind the avionic modelling used in Ka-50. If they want to include it in DCS, they need to beef it up with clickable pit and 6DOF.

[BeachAV8R]

The DCS concept is fantastic and is good news to serious simmers. I've always been a proponent of a core module with add-ons..and it looks like this is what they are shooting for. Instead of reinventing the wheel over and over again, get a base module and then concentrate on releasing super-high quality platforms for that base. Granted..the base can be updated and patched as well..but I'm really excited about the possibility of a series of study sim quality products.

 

And Pilot and CP/Gunner AH-64...oh man...

 

Looking forward to the evolution of this concept...

 

BeachAV8R

[Styxx]

I'm rather disapointed with these news too, having waited for such a long time for BS addon already, and now it changes to an independent product with (initially) nothing else than the KA-50 flyable. I was looking forward to some coop games with fighters providing air cover for ka's, but now that wont be happening any time soon...

 

In the other hand a "fresh start" has its upsides I guess. Like maybe we can get some really more detailed terrain at least, the current lock on ground detail level always seemed rather low for a helo sim. I wonder though, that if future addons for DCS take as long to develop as BS has, wont the current KA50 be way outdated after a few addon generations (in, say, 3-5 years?) just like the lock on content is now?

 

Now what would be really superb would be a Lock On source code release when the Ka-50 is out :D

[GGTharos]

There won't be any source code release. I'm not sure why people are even mentioning it, it will NOT happen.

 

As for the fresh start and how long it took for the Ka-50 ...

1. The ANG A-10C project took /significant/ time away from the Ka-50

2. ED is developing other things in parallel as well (my guess), such as the DCS core

3. This isn't 'just a ka-50' ... there is a /huge/ amount of effort that has gone into giving you AFM, click-pits, MFDs, and all the other goodies that you see in there. This takes TIME. A LOT of TIME.

4. With the systems mentioned in 3 already in place, it means development of additional aircraft will be faster - reuse is the key.

[159th_Viper]

4. With the systems mentioned in 3 already in place, it means development of additional aircraft will be faster - reuse is the key.

 

And therein lies the Beauty of DCS: One can be fairly certain that ED would not have stuck their necks out so far when it was stipulated that further modules would be released within a specific time-frame if it was not indeed eminently reasonable and foreseeable that it could and will be done........and I dare say in any event that it will take the majority of simmers who are interested in doing it the "realistic" way a good deal of time to master the systems on the Ka-50, so much that the next module will be along in no time - the Future is Bright Indeed :)

[thereminqblank]

It looks fairly safe to say that within the next two years, we could be seeing insanely modelled Ka-50, Apache and Hog. That seems to be a far better idea than waiting 2-3 years before seeing anything in Tank Killers.

 

It's almost like the episodic content craze going on at the moment.

[enigma6584]

There won't be any source code release. I'm not sure why people are even mentioning it, it will NOT happen.

 

As for the fresh start and how long it took for the Ka-50 ...

1. The ANG A-10C project took /significant/ time away from the Ka-50

2. ED is developing other things in parallel as well (my guess), such as the DCS core

3. This isn't 'just a ka-50' ... there is a /huge/ amount of effort that has gone into giving you AFM, click-pits, MFDs, and all the other goodies that you see in there. This takes TIME. A LOT of TIME.

4. With the systems mentioned in 3 already in place, it means development of additional aircraft will be faster - reuse is the key.

 

Exactly. Some of you people are missing the point. ED is and has set up the foundation from which to build on. A foundation which they are now in complete control and Ubisoft is out of the picture. That is what all this time which has passed has been used for. Don't be surprised if the newer, more in depth fast movers come down the pipe sooner rather than later.

 

Don't get me wrong...I'll miss the fast movers for now but I'll take the time and do something different, something crazy...I'll fly helicopters.:thumbup:

 

This is a good thing for our community of flight sim families people. It looks like our hobby will live on.

[Witchking]

OKAY ! One thing though...... WOULDn't ED LATER say that the engine is TOOO MODIFIED to make a DCS addon and hence again do a new game??

[GGTharos]

^^^^

 

You should start writing conspiracy stories, you might be good at it ;)

Alternatively, you might want to read the FAQ to answer your question ...

[Haegar]

Well, reality beats conspiracy storys as we can see. :music_whistling:

[BeachAV8R]

I'm rather disapointed with these news too, having waited for such a long time for BS addon already, and now it changes to an independent product with (initially) nothing else than the KA-50 flyable.

To say "nothing else" other than the KA-50 is to not fully appreciate how much you are getting with the stand-alone product. Just the preliminary details that have been released thus far (twice the ground detail, a more powerful mission editor, and an unbelievable flight model to name a few) make this new product something to seriously consider. Once you see how incredible the avionics and flight modeling of the KA-50 is done..you will really be excited about the prospect of additional modules.

 

BeachAV8R

[ALDEGA]

2. ED is developing other things in parallel as well (my guess), such as the DCS core

Hmm, not sure what you mean by "DCS core" (sounds like a marketing gimmick). I'm pretty certain the DCS executable and libraries contain code from way back (down to Flanker 2.x) ... :D

 

Back on topic, ED does seem to have the ability now to make (relatively) frequent releases which introduce a new, detailed flyable at a time, as they can now focus on implementing a flyable, instead of having to develop supporting components (like AFM, clickable cockpit...). Time will tell how it works out.

[GGTharos]

Hmm, not sure what you mean by "DCS core" (sounds like a marketing gimmick). I'm pretty certain the DCS executable and libraries contain code from way back (down to Flanker 2.x) ... :D

 

The whole idea is to leave this legacy code behind. The DCS core is the infrastructure: Graphics engine, network, sound engine, physics engine, etc etc. Are you sure now? :)