New Pay Model / subscription discussion

[Vertigo72]

compile it and bingo you get what a DCS plane makes in another environment.

 

FS already has everything needed for a flightsim. It has a graphics engine, terrain, atmospheric model, a generic flightmodel, it already allows plane developers to build their own planes, adjust flight model characteristics, write their own avionics, ... none of that needs to be redone and it wont make sense to do so, certainly not initially. So no, DCS planes will never fly in FS without being redone completely as FS plane. That cant be the goal.

 

But FS wont have sams or tanks or ships or targets or weapons. It wont have AI that can control them or certainly not do combat. It wont have a suitable mission editor. It may not have whats needed for radar, moving tacan stations, IFF. The whole concept of red or blue sides. Objectives. Scoring. It probably wont support AAR. If it has a carrier, it wont be anything like what we expect from it. It wont have much of a damage model. It wont have awacs or datalinks or ECM.

 

Those things can be added. For almost everything I just mentioned, it has already been done before. And for so many critically important elements of that, yes sorry ED should be able to "copy/paste" the logic and algorithms from their existing game rather than having to rewrite from scratch. 3d models of assets can be reused. the AI code that controls them should be able to be reused. The decisions an AI pilot makes based on whatever input you give it, should not be different between one game engine and another. It should be largely if not completely self contained. The kinematics and ballistics and behavior of all our missiles or sams should not be reinvented. ED would not be throwing away 30 years of work, they would be capitalizing on it.

 

Yes they are working on moving away from an DX-based 3D engine to a Vulkan/Mantle based one for years now. Can you remember how long it took to get from DX9 to DX11. And moving to Vulkan is quite not only a trivial job in replacing one graphics library with another. It means re-coding and re-designing a lot of the graphics work already done.

 

Yes its a lot of work. And there are no silver bullets, Vulkan isnt either. May not even solve any of the current problems. Doing state of the art graphics engines is hard. Doing world simulation is even harder. Probably why hardly any game developers still bother trying, instead they focus on the things they do best and just licence engines made by companies who have thousands of employees doing nothing else. Thats why that 1 man indie studio can release stunning looking games with volumetric clouds and smooth VR performance, and ED, well, cant.

 

No, I personally had never thought about doing military stuff within a civilian flying focused simulation software ... and no one with a professional attempt would even look at this public gaming stuff.

 

You havent read any of the links I provided, have you? You might have noticed tacpack clients. Including USAF, Aviasim, and a bunch or professional training centers. There is a reason I wrote what I did, that it doesnt appeal to gamers, because it either looks horrible on FSX or is expensive and still looks meh on P3D. But apparently they are doing something right, if the military are not just looking at it, but actually buying it. But I guess its not professional enough for you?

 

Now I will come up with a real hard to get fact: This new civil flight sim you have a sketchy idea of that its such a professional tool that every company on this planet will soon switch over to offer their professional training devices with it just because it has nice shining graphics and it runs on an average PC device - it is a GAME.

 

You know what being a GAME means right? Especially a high profile game launch by one of the largest companies on the planet. Millions of users who share the costs of development. And if you make your GAME realistic enough, you get to sell that game and modules based on that game to the pro's too.

 

Like you know, FSX. Or tacpac. Or even DCSW.

 

Now imagine you can offer those pros what they already had, but on top of that, instead of 0.01% of the globe, a highly detailed 3d representation of the entire planet. There isnt even a single multi million dollar full motion simulator that provides that currenty anywhere. And instead of an atmospheric simulation that can basically be only on, off or have 1990 sprites pretending to be clouds, a proper dynamic and realistic atmosphere. What do you think they will say? Naaaah. Its a game. We will stick with the ahm.. games we already have.

Edited June 17, 2020 by Vertigo72

[Northstar98]

FS already has everything needed for a flightsim. It has a graphics engine, terrain, atmospheric model, a generic flightmodel, it already allows plane developers to build their own planes, adjust flight model characteristics, write their own avionics, ... none of that needs to be redone and it wont make sense to do so

 

Are you serious!!?

 

None of it will have to be redone? Tell me Vertigo, if getting things to work in completely different software is so easy, why did RAZBAM have to completely redo their Harrier, when they already have 2 in FSX/P3D? I mean they should've had a massive head start right? None of anything had to be redone right?

 

Meanwhile back in reality, the RAZBAM Harrier is eclipsed in completeness, by new developers starting from scratch.

 

Just because they simulate similar things doesn't mean they simulate them in the exact same way at the fundamental level.

 

Again, we have no idea what MSFS2020 will support. And you're assuming this stuff will be feasible to do in a few years, when it's taken decades to get to where DCS is now, and it's core is still very much WIP.

 

But FS wont have sams or tanks or ships or targets or weapons. It wont have AI that can control them or certainly not do combat. It wont have a suitable mission editor. It may not have whats needed for radar, moving tacan stations, IFF. The whole concept of red or blue sides. Objectives. Scoring. It probably wont support AAR. If it has a carrier, it wont be anything like what we expect from it. It wont have much of a damage model. It wont have awacs or datalinks or ECM.

 

So in other words, it's completely unsuitable for DCS?

 

I mean has VRS said they'll do tacpack for MSFS2020 yet? Do they plan to?

 

Those things can be added. For almost everything I just mentioned, it has already been done before.

 

With a fair few limitations, you even said yourself "not to the level that DCS does".

 

And for so many critically important elements of that, yes sorry ED should be able to "copy/paste" the logic and algorithms from their existing game rather than having to rewrite from scratch.

 

Copy and paste!!! :megalol:

 

Look at RAZBAM, their Harrier couldn't be further than a copy and paste job, it was basically done from scratch, and years down the line still isn't finished yet.

 

3d models of assets can be reused. the AI code that controls them should be able to be reused. The decisions an AI pilot makes based on whatever input you give it, should not be different between one game engine and another. It should be largely if not completely self contained. The kinematics and ballistics and behavior of all our missiles or sams should not be reinvented.

 

If this stuff doesn't work the same way it does in DCS World (let alone natively supported, which it most likely isn't) then they'll have to basically start again, like what RAZBAM more-or-less had to do. How is pathfinding going to work, will the map have destructible bridges and buildings?

 

Will the flight model work in exactly the same way as DCS World? If it doesn't, then it's a rewrite simple as.

 

ED would not be throwing away 30 years of work, they would be capitalizing on it.

 

This quite frankly, is delusional.

 

Yes its a lot of work. And there are no silver bullets, Vulkan isnt either. May not even solve any of the current problems.

 

Oh my god, the projection is endless.

 

Doing state of the art graphics engines is hard. Doing world simulation is even harder.

 

And porting all of your work, so that it works in completely different software, is even harder still. Name one example of a flight simulator being ported into a completely different one?

 

The closest is FSX and P3D, but P3D was entirely based off of FSX, they have plenty in common.

 

DCS and MSFS2020, aside from genre (well-ish, they clearly cater to different niches, DCS is far more specific), share nothing in common. Completely different software.

 

Thats why that 1 man indie studio can release stunning looking games with volumetric clouds and smooth VR performance, and ED, well, cant.

 

:doh:

 

I mean hello?

 

 

And oh my god MORE projection.

Edited June 18, 2020 by Northstar98

[Vertigo72]

None of it will have to be redone?

 

You missed my point completely. I am saying the exact opposite. There is no point in ED redoing the things MS already provides, FS will already have its own API and tools for airplane creation, and it makes no sense to reinvent that unless there is something horribly missing. So current DCS modules will NOT and can NOT work in a FS based DSCW. those planes will have to be redone. But like I also said a dozen times, they will be redone for FS whether or not ED goes that route.

 

Cant be arsed to quote and reply to 4674 other comments.

[Northstar98]

Okay, you only want ED and co. to effectively abandon further development of DCS and develop mods for MSFS 2020.

[schmiefel]

Not much to add from here ...

 

@Vertigo72 : it seems you had started running deeply into a deadlock and just can't stop running right in the same direction until hitting a wall very hard instead of turning around... that's realy like a vertigo moment when the pilot does controlled flight into terrain with never knowing what had happened.

 

You simple can't accept simple facts, make one pure assumption on the next without having basic knowledge of nearly anything you're talking about and mix it with guessing and hopeless dreaming to one more pointless cocktail after another. - Wasn't it all about a wrong business model first that you would like to tune for the ED amateur stuff based on the professional knowledge you have from your vast business experience?

 

If that's all that simple just get on one of those several plattforms, get or buy a 3D model from an aircraft of your choice there, port it over to whatever suits you (errhh ... if those, that you assume are just waiting for other well trained software developers to port their things over, let you do so ...) and make your own bestworking flight simulator with all those fluffy clouds, real time global weather and 3D graphics you think make a real simulation instead of the crap we use as DCSW ...:joystick:

I am out of this pointless debate...:pilotfly:

[OPEC]

Okay, you only want ED and co. to effectively abandon further development of DCS and develop mods for MSFS 2020.

Yeah. Also I'm quite into looking for a solution and maybe a different payment model, we're getting kinda off track here.

 

Gesendet von meinem SM-N975F mit Tapatalk

[schmiefel]

You missed my point completely. I am saying the exact opposite. There is no point in ED redoing the things MS already provides, FS will already have its own API and tools for airplane creation, and it makes no sense to reinvent that unless there is something horribly missing. So current DCS modules will NOT and can NOT work in a FS based DSCW. those planes will have to be redone. But like I also said a dozen times, they will be redone for FS whether or not ED goes that route.

 

Cant be arsed to quote and reply to 4674 other comments.

 

 

I think you'll have to accept that there is no point for ED while having all the tools themself for aircraft creation, 3rd party SDKs, EFM and PFM, terrain creation tools, mission editor tools, scripting engine, ... to redo this to use the tools another developer (might) offer ...

 

 

Edit: That would be the real waste of money, time and effort

Edited June 17, 2020 by schmiefel

[Vertigo72]

I mean hello?

 

Hi there!

Yes that looks much better, but its a static screenshot it doesnt tell me much. I cant see framerates. Is it even volumetric? Are they dynamic? What its like when fly through them. Do they cast shadows on themselves ? Produce rain? How do they interact with mountains? fog? You think it will be anything like this:

 

 

Im not holding my breath. But I do look forward to seeing anything better than what we have right now.

[schmiefel]

Hi there!

Yes that looks much better, but its a static screenshot it doesnt tell me much. I cant see framerates. Is it even volumetric? Are they dynamic? What its like when fly through them. Do they cast shadows on themselves ? Produce rain? How do they interact with mountains? fog? You think it will be anything like this:

 

 

Im not holding my breath. But I do look forward to seeing anything better than what we have right now.

 

 

Oh well, that's the internet folks of today I like that much ... making assumptions on YT videos ... that are the same folks that can derive a simulation from an arcade driving or flight model by watching a video :doh:

[StressLess]

Cha-ching! @Vertigo72 comes thru and I finally got my money back, thanks man!

 

But like many of the others in this thread, I'm bailing out also!

 

It's been great, and it's been fun, but I can't say it's been great fun...

 

PS- @Vertigo72, don't forget to let us know when either the mothership lands or when FS2020 actually develops a ground war feature for their sim, whichever comes first!

[Vertigo72]

Okay, you only want ED and co. to effectively abandon further development of DCS and develop mods for MSFS 2020.

 

It doesnt have to be that black and white. Is P3D a mod of FSX or its own flight sim that still shares a little code of FSX? I dont see why it matters, what matters is the end product, is it something you want or not.

 

So I can see this being a gradual process. Initially ED could just create a mod that enables some of the things that make a stock FS unsuitable for combat. Say, just weapons and IFF and whatever else is needed to allow at least PvP air to air combat. Maybe just with guns only. That wont make FS a real alternative to DCS, but I can see that being quite a popular addon that will generate revenue. At the same time ED would be setting a standard and API for third party (FS) plane module makers to enable their planes to do combat. Pretty much like tacpack. More revenue for ED and ensuring no one else gets to set those standards and become a future competitor.

 

But over time ED can add a better carrier to it and ground assets, and targets and a mission editor and AI. If need be, their own system for avionics and flight modelling. They may even make it easier for DCS modules to be ported to their FS mod (or vice versa) by ensuring those APIs are as similar as possible. That may enable module developers to offer combo deals, buy a tomcat in DCS, and you get to fly their tomcat in FS too, even if you can only shoot its guns there initially. And vice versa. Buy the FS tomcat and you get access to the module in DCSW with less eye candy but more combat.

 

With time the FS module would gradually transition from being FS with a little combat addon to being DCSW-X that happens to be based on FS engine. And then maybe 10 years from now, it would make sense to pull the plug on legacy DCSW. If by that time it does everything DCS does, and some things very much better, why would that be a bad thing?

Edited June 18, 2020 by Vertigo72

[schmiefel]

It doesnt have to be that black and white. Is P3D a mod of FSX or its own flight sim that still shares a little code of FSX? I dont see why it matters, what matters is the end product, is it something you want or not.

 

So I can see this being a gradual process. Initially ED could just create a mod that enables some of the things that make a stock FS unsuitable for combat. Say, just weapons and IFF and whatever else is needed to allow at least PvP air to air combat. Maybe just with guns only. That wont make FS a real alternative to DCS, but I can see that being quite a popular addon that will generate revenue. At the same time ED would be setting a standard and API for third party (FS) plane module makers to enable their planes to do combat. Pretty much like tacpack. More revenue for ED and ensuring no one else gets to set those standards and become a future competitor.

 

But over time ED can add a better carrier to it and ground assets, and targets and a mission editor and AI. If need be, their own system for avionics and flight modelling. They may even make it easier for DCS modules to be ported to their FS mod (or vice versa) by ensuring those APIs are as similar as possible. It would gradually transition from being FS with a little combat addon to being DCSW-X that happens to be based on FS engine. And then maybe 10 years from now, it would make sense to pull the plug on legacy DCSW. If by that time it does everything DCS does, and some things very much better, why would that be a bad thing?

 

 

Now it finally gets complete out of order: 1st you state that ED has much too few ressources to develop in a certain way the necessary basics further more - now you demand that they use their critical low (by your thinking) ressources to develop 'mods' for other flight simulations to expand the business ... come one ... that's the most senseless idea you already had...

Edited June 18, 2020 by schmiefel

[OPEC]

@schmiefel Thank you. As much as I support different Ideas to give ED some extra funding - needed or not is a different topic - this is getting completly out of hand.

 

@Vertigo72 is it possible that you lost sight completly of what the first idea was?

 

Gesendet von meinem SM-N975F mit Tapatalk

[Vertigo72]

Now it finally gets complete out of order: 1st you state that ED has much to few ressources to develop in a certain way the necessary basics further more - now you demand that they use their critical low (by your thinking) ressources to develop 'mods' for other flight simulations to expand the business ... come one ... that's the most senseless idea you already had...

 

Dear schmiefel, your reading comprehension skills SUCK. Quote me where I say ED do not have the resources. My point is they have no incentive to focus the resources they have on the base layer. Because it doesnt make them money. So they their developers create more maps and more planes and more carriers, because those do make money. So would a FS mod. And not only does that make them money it also gives them a long term path to no longer have to spend those resources on the base layer, as MS will do that for them.

Edited June 18, 2020 by Vertigo72

[schmiefel]

Dear schmiefel, your reading comprehension skills SUCK. Quote me where I say ED do not have the resources. My point is they have no incentive to focus the resources they have on the base layer. Because it doesnt make them money. So they their developers create more maps and more planes and more carriers, because those do make money. So would a FS mod. And not only does that make them money it also gives them a long term path to no longer have to spend those resources on the base layer, as MS will do that for them.

 

 

Well I am quite sure that I am too dumb to get the genius behind the many ideas you already developed over here.:music_whistling:

 

 

But I am quite as sure that you don't have a clue how software development and software business works. The DCSW core IS the business of ED as all their own modules base on it - without their own DCSW core there is simple no more business. Everything else - even MAC development - is a complete new business. So if they don't have the incentive to develop this core futher more we are already lost :huh:

[Vertigo72]

You mean creating new revenue from new products that can be sold to both existing and (millionsof) new customers, while those products can share code and rely on the same knowledge and same research, is a way to drive your business in the ground? You mean like how microsoft went bankrupt because they stopped only selling Dos but also made windows and then office and a bazillion other apps, even flight simulators and even sold their software to mac users? What where they thinking! They should have stuck with Dos.

 

Yes, you really are clueless.

[Rainer_B.]

Share Codes? Wow, i thought i heard it all, but you are a new kind of User. Remind me of my chef. New program? A few clicks here and there and in 5 Minutes the result is there.

[Vertigo72]

Share Codes?

 

code. singular. Of course it should be possible to have at least some shared code if you are going to replicate the exact same functionality. If nothing else the logic that determines at what time of day the carrier turns on its lights. Or the scripting engine in the mission editor. Or the math module that calculates the ballistic trajectory of a particular type of bomb based on speed/attitude/air temperature and density/whatever. Why on earth would you ignore having written all those things before?

 

Its amazing how you guys are so intent on proving me wrong. You must feel really threatened by the prospect that one day there may be a military simulation that is based on something other than the current DCSW and that it may even be made by ED. Why? It simply a good idea. For them and for us.

 

usually when businesses transition from one platform to another, this is risky and expensive and quite often involves a painful transition process that risks alienating customers. Like dos to windows. Or every time Apple switched from motorola to powerpc to intel.

 

If ED where to decide to swap out their own graphics and physics engine for, say, Unity, this would also be costly, risky and may not bear fruit for a long time. It may not work. If it does, it wont even directly generate revenue.

 

What I suggest, developing both DCS and a "DCSW-X" FS mod can be profitable and mutually beneficial every step of the way. The two platforms will not meaningfully compete initially so they can happily coexist and serve different markets and both can make money until the point where their functionalities do overlap significantly or entirely and DCS becomes obsolete and can be EOLd. The old one can be EOLs when there is a working new platform that didnt cost ED a penny, it made them lots of pennies.

 

Or, if it turns you nay sayers are right, and it cant be done and the FS mod hits some brick wall and cant support all that is in DCS, then it remains an addon with limited functionality that can do some things, but will never do all that dcs can. Then so be it, DCS lives on and you still lost nothing. A limited mod still has value to FS pilots. A failed unity port does not have value to anyone.

 

So instead of ED investing a fortune and risking failure and having painful transitions, this is a transition that is as risk free as it gets, it can be seamless and profitable from start to finish. They can pull the plug at any time with no significant loss of investment. Thats pretty rare. You guys love to prove me wrong, but it simply is a good idea. And if ED dont do it, someone else will. Someone who doesnt have those code snippets to copy paste and didnt do the fluid dynamics simulation of the amraam yet. Unless that someone of course, designed the amraam

 

 

yes I know lockheed martin didnt design the amraam. Must give you guys something to prove me wrong and clueless

 

 

Oh and btw, hello "new user".

Edited June 18, 2020 by Vertigo72

[Northstar98]

It doesnt have to be that black and white. Is P3D a mod of FSX or its own flight sim that still shares a little code of FSX? I dont see why it matters, what matters is the end product, is it something you want or not.

 

From my estimation P3D is basically a mod of FSX, it's not completely different, P3D was built off of FSX. Because they share an identical base, developing addons that are compatible for both is a lot easier.

 

It's why you see addons compatible for P3D and FSX. But not P3D and X-Plane for instance - because they're completely different. Effectively doubling the development time.

 

MSFS2020 is completely different from DCS, and aside from it being a flight simulator, it shares nothing in common. It is completely different from every way you look at it. Anything you want to take from DCS World and implement into MSFS2020 is a complete rewrite, simple as. Not only that, but you'll have to develop the supporting architecture for it as well, seeing as the base MSFS2020, aside from simulating flight (to an unknown fidelity, again, anyone see a helicopter yet?) has precisely none of the features necessary for DCS World natively supported. You even said that yourself.

 

But no you just said "well VRS Tacpack exists so it can be done" yeah, except everything there is incredibly limited, no disrespect to those developers for actually getting something workable, but you even said yourself it's way more limited compared to DCS World, why do you think that is? I'll wager that the base platform not natively support anything they needed just might have had something to do with it...

 

So we'll have to essentially start from scratch, but bear in mind that said features are WIP even in DCS World, they're still being developed, and you what them to start again so they can make mods for MSFS2020? And abandon DCS World (which is surrendering yourself as a competitor from the get go).

 

So I can see this being a gradual process. Initially ED could just create a mod that enables some of the things that make a stock FS unsuitable for combat. Say, just weapons and IFF and whatever else is needed to allow at least PvP air to air combat. Maybe just with guns only. That wont make FS a real alternative to DCS, but I can see that being quite a popular addon that will generate revenue. At the same time ED would be setting a standard and API for third party (FS) plane module makers to enable their planes to do combat. Pretty much like tacpack. More revenue for ED and ensuring no one else gets to set those standards and become a future competitor.

 

But over time ED can add a better carrier to it and ground assets, and targets and a mission editor and AI. If need be, their own system for avionics and flight modelling.

 

Assuming it's feasible to even do any of this...

 

They may even make it easier for DCS modules to be ported to their FS mod (or vice versa) by ensuring those APIs are as similar as possible. That may enable module developers to offer combo deals, buy a tomcat in DCS, and you get to fly their tomcat in FS too, even if you can only shoot its guns there initially. And vice versa. Buy the FS tomcat and you get access to the module in DCSW with less eye candy but more combat.

 

:doh:

 

Name me a single addon that is compatible with 2 fundamentally different simulators...

 

Why would the flight dynamics modelling and the avionics share a common API, let alone all of the other stuff that isn't even natively supported, like damage modelling, weapons guidance, RADAR, IFF, EW (even if it is super limited), AI and everything else with it. Those APIs will almost certainly have to be developed from scratch, as they were with VRS Tacpack.

 

What about the terrain engine? Will it have destructible buildings? Can I take out runways? (almost certainly no).

 

With time the FS module would gradually transition from being FS with a little combat addon to being DCSW-X that happens to be based on FS engine. And then maybe 10 years from now, it would make sense to pull the plug on legacy DCSW. If by that time it does everything DCS does, and some things very much better, why would that be a bad thing?

 

Because 10 years is overly optimistic to the point of being borderline delusional.

 

10 years is closer to the time to develop 1 aircraft, tailor made to work in DCS World with all of its systems implemented (most of our new stuff hasn't even got there yet).

 

Also bear in mind that developers for DCS World and it's modules have zero experience developing addons for MSFS2020. And it's taken decades plural to get to where DCS is now and still pretty much everything is WIP. How can you possibly, realistically expect to have any of the features that DCS requires in FSX within a space of a few years?

 

And with things like damage models, are you expecting ED and co. to develop damage models etc for other aircraft too? Tacpack only did systems damage models for some systems (probably by randomly triggering failures, something natively supprted in FSX), as well as generating large fires behind aircraft. But in terms of structural failures? Absolutely zip. Tell me why MSFS2020 would be any different?

 

You mean creating new revenue from new products that can be sold to both existing and (millionsof) new customers, while those products can share code and rely on the same knowledge and same research, is a way to drive your business in the ground?

 

Okay, you keep bringing up "Millions of customers", tell me Vertigo, if there is a userbase that large interested in full-fidelity military aircraft, don't you think they'd be over here?

 

while those products can share code and rely on the same knowledge and same research, is a way to drive your business in the ground?

 

Products that can share code, well I don't know about 'can' but not sure why it's relevant seeing as they categorically, fundamentally, do not.

 

Seriously, accept the fact that developing stuff for completely different software, one the developers have zero experience in, that aside from flight and avionics, natively supports nothing else (and the stuff it does natively support, are almost certainly coded completely differently, with a completely different API, probably to a different level of fidelity) is almost certainly, going to require starting all over again, from scratch.

 

Again, look at RAZBAM's Harrier II, it was an addon that had been developed for FSX/P3D. When they developed it for DCS, (completely different software) they had to basically start all over again, they even redid the 3D model of both the cockpit and the aircraft. Fast forward to today and the Harrier is still in a bit of a sorry state, and isn't finished yet, nearly 3 years after its initial release...

 

According to you RAZBAM should've had a head start, having a workable addon in another simulator, but back in reality...

 

Why do you think it would be any different in MSFS2020? Again, not a single developer for ED or any official 3rd parties has any experience developing addons for MSFS2020, a simulator in an alpha state, that hasn't even been released yet... That almost certainly does everything differently to DCS World...

 

Not only that, but ED is currently in a favourable position in that they've effectively got a monopoly on full-fidelity, modern combat aircraft. But even so there's only 2 main competitors for that niche. There's BMS Falcon (which has several heavily sought after features like a dynamic campaign, but there are some other things that DCS does better - namely graphics), there's also IL-2 (which despite not being full-fidelity, has a far better and far more authentic structural damage model than DCS does, whereby parts crack and damage leads them more prone to structural failure, fallen off bits of aircraft also retain their collision models).

 

DCS World however has the firm lead on carrier operations - nothing comes close. Does it have problems? Yeah, of course it does, but it's ahead of the competition by miles.

Edited June 18, 2020 by Northstar98

[schmiefel]

code. singular. Of course it should be possible to have at least some shared code if you are going to replicate the exact same functionality. If nothing else the logic that determines at what time of day the carrier turns on its lights. Or the scripting engine in the mission editor. Or the math module that calculates the ballistic trajectory of a particular type of bomb based on speed/attitude/air temperature and density/whatever. Why on earth would you ignore having written all those things before?

 

Its amazing how you guys are so intent on proving me wrong. You must feel really threatened by the prospect that one day there may be a military simulation that is based on something other than the current DCSW and that it may even be made by ED. Why? It simply a good idea. For them and for us.

 

usually when businesses transition from one platform to another, this is risky and expensive and quite often involves a painful transition process that risks alienating customers. Like dos to windows. Or every time Apple switched from motorola to powerpc to intel.

 

If ED where to decide to swap out their own graphics and physics engine for, say, Unity, this would also be costly, risky and may not bear fruit for a long time. It may not work. If it does, it wont even directly generate revenue.

 

What I suggest, developing both DCS and a "DCSW-X" FS mod can be profitable and mutually beneficial every step of the way. The two platforms will not meaningfully compete initially so they can happily coexist and serve different markets and both can make money until the point where their functionalities do overlap significantly or entirely and DCS becomes obsolete and can be EOLd. The old one can be EOLs when there is a working new platform that didnt cost ED a penny, it made them lots of pennies.

 

Or, if it turns you nay sayers are right, and it cant be done and the FS mod hits some brick wall and cant support all that is in DCS, then it remains an addon with limited functionality that can do some things, but will never do all that dcs can. Then so be it, DCS lives on and you still lost nothing. A limited mod still has value to FS pilots. A failed unity port does not have value to anyone.

 

So instead of ED investing a fortune and risking failure and having painful transitions, this is a transition that is as risk free as it gets, it can be seamless and profitable from start to finish. They can pull the plug at any time with no significant loss of investment. Thats pretty rare. You guys love to prove me wrong, but it simply is a good idea. And if ED dont do it, someone else will. Someone who doesnt have those code snippets to copy paste and didnt do the fluid dynamics simulation of the amraam yet. Unless that someone of course, designed the amraam

 

Sorry Sir, its 'codes" not singular 'code' like you think as it is not simply one code that needs to get adapted but several parts make the whole thing. - And that example simple shows quite well that you have no clue how software design and development works.

 

The example with Razbam that had Harrier modules still ready for other simulations and couldn't port this simply over into DCSW was already mentioned. And if that would be that simple and easy like you think a few other studios that have already some military aircraft in their programme would have adapted them to DCSW as well already. That's the same vice versa.

 

I am finally out of this now as it doesn't make any sense to argue further with someone that is that clueless and it gets boring debating this on and on with someone that lacks simple basic knowledge and completely refuses to learn some stuff and get a better understading how things work...

Edited June 18, 2020 by schmiefel
spelling errors corrected

[Vertigo72]

Sorry Sir, its 'codes" not singular 'code' like you think

 

ROFL. And Im the one who knows nothing about software development.

 

https://english.stackexchange.com/a/20456

[Northstar98]

code. singular. Of course it should be possible to have at least some shared code if you are going to replicate the exact same functionality. If nothing else the logic that determines at what time of day the carrier turns on its lights. Or the scripting engine in the mission editor. Or the math module that calculates the ballistic trajectory of a particular type of bomb based on speed/attitude/air temperature and density/whatever. Why on earth would you ignore having written all those things before?

 

Because it might be coded in a different way. It might not go into the same level of fidelity, it might not even support certain aspects, it wouldn't be the first time.

 

Notice how every flight simulator seems to be different in terms of modelling flight, even for the same aircraft? Now why might that be?

 

Its amazing how you guys are so intent on proving me wrong.

 

Well, it doesn't take much effort...

 

Especially when it's based on thing but, pure speculation, no basis on reality whatsoever, the platform isn't even released yet, and it's almost certainly fundamentally different from a coding perspective. I like how you ignored my example of a developer doing, close to what you're proposing and the sunshine and rainbows? It absolutely wasn't and still isn't. Funny that...

 

And what was your only example again? A mod that you said yourself, is inferior to DCS?

 

You must feel really threatened by the prospect that one day there may be a military simulation that is based on something other than the current DCSW and that it may even be made by ED. Why? It simply a good idea. For them and for us.

 

Dang got me there! :megalol:

 

Seriously Vertigo, are you okay?

 

What I suggest, developing both DCS and a "DCSW-X" FS mod can be profitable and mutually beneficial every step of the way. The two platforms will not meaningfully compete initially so they can happily coexist and serve different markets and both can make money until the point where their functionalities do overlap significantly or entirely and DCS becomes obsolete and can be EOLd. The old one can be EOLs when there is a working new platform that didnt cost ED a penny, it made them lots of pennies.

 

Yeah, come back when it's actually true.

 

Or, if it turns you nay sayers are right, and it cant be done and the FS mod hits some brick wall and cant support all that is in DCS, then it remains an addon with limited functionality that can do some things, but will never do all that dcs can. Then so be it, DCS lives on and you still lost nothing. A limited mod still has value to FS pilots. A failed unity port does not have value to anyone.

 

If we're wrong, name me an example of something doing what DCS does in a simulator that doesn't natively support it. I mean FSX has been around for bloody ages... Have we got an example of [insert flight simulator here] DCS edition? That does everything DCS does?

 

I'll wait.

 

So instead of ED investing a fortune and risking failure and having painful transitions, this is a transition that is as risk free as it gets, it can be seamless and profitable from start to finish. They can pull the plug at any time with no significant loss of investment.

 

OH MY GOD :megalol:

 

The delusion is real.

 

"Hey guys, shall we abandon DCS World and start development of a DCS World plug-in for MSFS2020? I mean it's as risk free as it gets! Think about it, none of us have any experience at all working with it, it'll probably share nothing in common with anything we've done thus far, it doesn't natively support the majority of what we need it to, and the thing isn't even released yet. Plus, we get to surrender our competiting product! I mean what's more risk free and seemless as that? Plus it'll be super profitable, because there's millions of customers interested in full-fidelity military aircraft, but for some reason, they're not using our product"

 

It was seriously difficult to retain composure while typing that.

 

Thats pretty rare.

 

Pretty rare? So there must be one example of this thing happening then, let's hear it.

 

You guys love to prove me wrong, but it simply is a good idea.

 

Donald Trump? Is that you?

 

Ladies and gentleman, boys and girls, kin of all phyla, I present to you, the Dunning-Kruger effect.

 

And if ED dont do it, someone else will. Someone who doesnt have those code snippets to copy paste and didnt do the fluid dynamics simulation of the amraam yet. Unless that someone of course, designed the amraam

 

Okay then, lets see them then...

 

Hello? Anybody?

 

yes I know lockheed martin didnt design the amraam. Must give you guys something to prove me wrong and clueless

 

:megalol:

 

Bloody hell, "must give you guys something to prove me wrong"

 

PFFFFFFTTTTT!!!!! :megalol:

 

As if you of all people need to try!

Edited June 18, 2020 by Northstar98

[Rainer_B.]

Ok. Now is the point to end the discussion. Thrash the grammar. BTW, my last english lession were in 1978 and i'm not a native speaker.

Code or Codes, that's not the question.

Please read the Thread title.

I own all modules. I'm not interested in a pay model.

My only wish is more time to learn the aircrafts. I need no FS2020 for simple flying, the Christen Eagle is fun enough.

[BIGNEWY]

Hi all

 

This thread has nearly run its course :)

 

We have no plans to change our pay model.

 

Please keep the topic on DCS and not other sims

 

thanks

Edited June 18, 2020 by BIGNEWY

[schmiefel]

ROFL. And Im the one who knows nothing about software development.

 

https://english.stackexchange.com/a/20456

 

 

Forget it! Thats why it was cited in quotation marks as its not about the grammar but about how software doesn't consist of a single code but it consists of several modules that have to work together to build the whole thing we then call a 'flight simulator'. Basic understanding of how these things have to get together would let you get the knowledge that there is no simple porting from one to another. Even inbetween the already mentioned FSX-P3D world it gets nowadays very complex to transfer from one to the other despite the fact that both share some common code base - simple because the latter moved on with version 4 to 64Bit as the programming adress space - even Wikipedia can help you get more basic knowledge on this.