Greatest news by far!

[sobek]

My bad, should have had a proper read. Nevertheless, i can see EDs point there. They wont be able to work with that content until its their own property. Just a scenario: ED builds some missions for a map that is not their own, the developer that built the map goes bankrupt but is still has the rights. Sure thing ED wont risk something like that.

 

@Prophet

I dont think that any 3rd party payware add-ons for any sim come without royalties, they are as common as the next thing. If you want to earn money by selling add-ons, you have to respect the work that the devs of the platform you use have made for you and pay royalties. Its as easy as that.

Edited July 11, 2008 by sobek

[GGTharos]

And that is why I am bringing it up.

 

It is common for developers to release plugin and tools to create 3rd party content, and I dont know of any that claim to own the content, or even take royalties if you charge for it.

 

Really? I guess DCS lets you make missions and do whatever with them ... I don't see why they'd care what you do with some 3D model either.

 

But hey, at least they call it what it is, instead of hiding the royalties in say, up-front dev tool purchase and support fees thereafter. But I guess only microsoft does that.

 

I just think it would really discourage some people from making the content.

 

Why? Heck, ED is outright offering those people to MAKE MONEY using ED'S PRODUCT.

 

Like the Walmis F15 model, and the new A10 model. I would gladly pay for those. This naval pack that people are making, I would gladly pay for that too. But it would sure leave a bad taste if ED was taking royalties for that.

 

That is your own personnal hangup.

ED provides the product on which your content will run, it provides development tools and development help. "All" you have to do is develop say, a plane. The rest of it is taken care for you ... so what's wrong with paying a bit of royalty for this if you're going to make money out of it?

 

Further, the intent is obvious; ED wants to make sure only quality addons appear, and that means time will be spend on their side to ensure it. As for the terrain stuff, the intent there should be obvious as well; they want to keep any good terrain to include officially with DCS. But they're not outright saying you can't make a buck off of it either.

[Prophet]

I am sure they already need these plugins to do the work themselves.

 

To me it just seems like they are trying to get a piece of the pie for a lot of work that customers will end up doing.

 

Its just too UBI to me.

[GGTharos]

I'm not trying to slam you Prophet, I'm just saying; it's something that isn't uncommon in the software industry - it's just that the gaming industry kept it different.

[eurofor]

Another aspect is that they obviously don't want to end up in a situation where 3rd party companies are churning out decent quality aircraft (popular ones like F-22, F-35, Su-34, Su-35) based on ED's engine and ED themselves not getting anything for it while they may be spending more time on each aircraft's details taking a longer time and making only the ones they have access to proper data on.

[AlphaOneSix]

they are trying to get a piece of the pie for a lot of work that customers will end up doing.

 

Replace "they" with "3rd party developers" and "customers" with "ED" and you also have a true statement.

 

If a 3rd party developer uses tools from ED and creates free add-ons, then they owe ED nothing. It's only if they use those tools and then sell their add-ons commercially that they will then be required to pay royalties.

 

ED could always just outright prohibit 3rd party developers form selling anything they create with ED's tools, that would be fine for me. ;)

[Avimimus]

If a 3rd party developer uses tools from ED and creates free add-ons, then they owe ED nothing. It's only if they use those tools and then sell their add-ons commercially that they will then be required to pay royalties.

 

A very charitable policy, if you ask me. I'm actually glad that ED will be able to maintain some influence on the 3rd party and turn a small profit (which can then be reinvested and/or pay the team's mortgages...)

[deviletk]

I think its ok for ED to get a piece of it as they made the initial work and will give us tools to make addons with. I only have experience from armed assault and no one makes addons that you have to pay for. This is because its not legal to do so, you can only make free addons. But when you can get some money from it, i think third party addons can be of highest quality. And for ED to get a slice of that when they braught us the foundation is totally ok to me.

 

It will be a bit weird to me as ArmA player since we get new addons everyday, literally, without any cost. But a group of addon makers that can get some money for their addon can put in more effort and time thanks to that. At least thats what i think. I wont have any problems paying for addons either as long as they are of quality and interest. DCS:BS is the big thing im waiting for. Its going to be a huge part of my life ;)

 

Regards

Alex

[EvilBivol-1]

Like the Walmis F15 model, and the new A10 model. I would gladly pay for those. This naval pack that people are making, I would gladly pay for that too. But it would sure leave a bad taste if ED was taking royalties for that.

It's hard to discuss this without having final details and I have no more information than you, but here is MHO:

There is a difference in being provided enough code access to replace certain elements, such as 3D models and textures (which is what we can do with LO) and being provided SDK tools to add qualitative game content. As they say in Russian, feel the difference? There is still plenty of open code in DCS - far more so than in FC - that users will be able to modify according to their needs and release to the community without requiring any of these tools or interaction with ED. However, if a 3rd Party is interested in developing the simulation world, especially if doing so for profit, ED is interested in retaining a level of control and, in cases where it is for profit, revenue. It is, after all, their simulation world.

Edited July 12, 2008 by EvilBivol-1

[thereminqblank]

I think there's confusion as to what '3rd Party' is referring. Just my interpretation, but I think 3rd means a commercial venture, not a community modder. ie, I feel the passage isn't aimed at the community, it's aimed at potential 'business partners'.

 

As for terrain creation, I think the passage is referring to the creation of new terrain areas (outside the Black Shark 'world) for integration to make a larger DCS world, not modding of the area (textures, objects) that will be released with Black Shark. And from the sounds of it, ED will have a major level of control over it. Which is fair enough, I'm not sure I want any old 3rd party making shoddy terrain areas.

 

As far as modding goes, it would be pretty hard for ED to enforce royalties on, say, a new model for the A-10, or a BMP-2, created by a community member.

[EvilBivol-1]

I think there's confusion as to what '3rd Party' is referring. Just my interpretation, but I think 3rd means a commercial venture, not a community modder. ie, I feel the passage isn't aimed at the community, it's aimed at potential 'business partners'.

Not necessarily - again, ED only desires content ownership over terrain integration (more about that below). Everything else is intended as a community venture, with the only caveat that if a modder wants to sell his work, he will owe ED some royalty for using their software. However, whether to sell mods or simply make them available to the community for free is up to the modder and ED claims no rights over their work. All ED is doing is proving you the tools to do it. At the same time, ED is open to cooperation with modders that intend their work for official integration, terrain or otherwise.

As for terrain creation, I think the passage is referring to the creation of new terrain areas (outside the Black Shark 'world) for integration to make a larger DCS world, not modding of the area (textures, objects) that will be released with Black Shark. And from the sounds of it, ED will have a major level of control over it. Which is fair enough, I'm not sure I want any old 3rd party making shoddy terrain areas.

Correct. The terrain builder is intended to create new terrain areas that would be integrated into the DCS world. This is why ED has to retain IP rights over the terrain - it will become part of ED's product, to both flight simmers and potential military customers.

As far as modding goes, it would be pretty hard for ED to enforce royalties on, say, a new model for the A-10, or a BMP-2, created by a community member.

Correct again. These tools are intended to greatly expand the community's ability to add game content, they do not in any way lessen what can already be done with the code provided in DCS, which is already considerably more than what could've been done with FC.

I am sure they already need these plugins to do the work themselves.

FYI, these tools were specifically developed for this purpose.

 

P.S. Merging this with the original thread on the topic.

Edited July 12, 2008 by EvilBivol-1

[Grimes]

What version of 3dmax do the current tools being used by the developer utilize for making models?

 

Also can official specs and requirements for the standard at which all DCS models will be put to be published in English?

 

Afterall it wouldn't hurt the community if the 3d modelers out there were able to build models at DCS standards before DCS is released and maybe they would for the most part be ready when it is. :music_whistling:

[Witchking]

it is indeed great news. However, i hope ED does a share of quality control. I mean no disrespect to the people making addons...but its better that ED fully check and see if the product integrates properly into the sim without crashes. The reason I say is: I installed LOFC, new F15, new A10 and the scenery packages...and my computer crashes with a BSOD. As a result I got sick of troubleshooting and now I am just waiting for DCS.

[diveplane]

It's not just a model, it's huge amounts of knowledge ...

THink about it:

3D model with damage

3D pit, clickable

Sensors!

Power/voltage/sources

Hydraulics

Fuel system

Engine system

 

The links to link it all up.

How about navigation and radios ...

How about them icing and dust effects? :D

Engines overheating because they're being abused?

The Flight Model? :D

 

dam right its massive amounts of work.., amazed how ed pull this off..

[Immermann]

Some of you guys mentioned wanting ground units and - if you notice, the SDK allows cockpit development and the addition of a physics engine. Perhaps some developers will decide to develop player controlled SAMs or AAA, or things like that.

 

If ED has the time and interest, perhaps they will add some factors that affect this - like traction, softness and composition of the ground, etc.

 

So, make some nice pits for all those beautiful tank models, and we might end up with some human ground targets?

 

How far would it be possible to go? Could you, theoretically, make a cross between DCS and Steel Beasts (I mean conceptually, not factually)?

[snowbird2]

Very good question Grimes on the 3D Max support.

Will the new 3D Max supported plugins work with the latest 2008 versions that people are now starting to use? Or is it still the version 7-8 support.

Autodesk does not sell older versions even if you have purchased the newer 2008 version lets say so using it for modding this sim does not work very well.

As the models get a internal stamp when they are created which is important to anyone trying to sell there stuff as payware (;) better be using a legal copy).

I am really hopeing they took a look at allowing support of 3D Max 9 and 2008.

[Kuky]

I look at this, this way... I am very glad ED is willing to release their tools to professionals, or amateurs with high modeling skills, and all creative people who are able to create new content be it in improved cockpits, new 3D models, terrain etc. The only thing I am weary about is wepons created by 3rd parties. There surely should be quality control check by ED themselves and if need be with anyone else who has propper expertese in these areas. I would not care what your cockpit loks like, it may all be painted in pink as much as I care, but if you were firing some UFO weapons at me or something out of the ordinary... that would imediately kill the game for me online... I really hope this never happens.

 

I agree that is some 3rd party developer creates new content and sells it, ED should have part of the profit, this is how things are in any industry where you use someone elses work to create your own and earn money from it.

 

I doubt there will be much extra conent being created unless its payware as there are not many people with so much free time and will to make things from scratch for the community for free... not in flight sim community at least as we are in a small minority of PC gaming "population" :)

 

Anyway, DCS is next best thing after bread for me :D at least very soon we will get super realistic (or maybe I should say scaringly realistic because it will be very hard to master it properly) attack helicopter... and in not so long distance... A-10 and so on... future is bright indeed...

[thereminqblank]

^Meh, sliced bread ain't got nothing on DCS :D

 

Another question: From the '3rd party' announcement, it looks as though the community will have access to tools which will allow us to create 3d cockpits and flight models for new aircraft. It also seems these could be released for free to the community?

 

If that's the case, how is that going to be integrated into DCS (especially when it comes to online play)? Or would these new aircraft only be usable in single player mode? I'm worried that people would be able to create 'super-planes', coupled with Kuky's UFO-weapons (hehe), that would be unfair online.

[VMFA117_Poko]

Same as in rFactor racing sim for example. Take a look at http:http://www.rfactorcentral.com - it's an example how huge game may become if the engine is good and was given easy access to SDK. You find many better and worse mods on the site. Everyone playing on a server i.e. F1 2005 need to have same mods installed as server and everyone there. So don't worry about UFO weapons. You just won't go on such server.

[brewber19]

Wasn't there some discussion of post-DCS:BS modules using a different engine that could make use of DX9, multi-core CPUs and various other things? If so, how can 3rd party developments for DCS:BS be compatible with a product that doesn't exist yet?

 

If I've understood correctly, any "mods" for DCS:BS are likely to only be compatible with DCS:BS...since the mods will have been made with that "game engine" in mind...or is that not the case?

 

I'm not a modder (skinner occasionally but...) so I'm ambivalent but either mods for DCS:BS will somehow need to be "future proof" or its actually going to be some time before DCS has an engine that makes use of multi-core/DX9 shaders etc so future proofing not likely to be an issue.

 

Anyone shine a light here or got any thoughts around DCS game engines and the impact of mod-making?

[some1]

Well, graphics engine is only one part of what so called "game engine", and it may be possible to modify / replace it without messing the game mechanics. Take a look at FSX: Microsoft (ACES to be precise) rewrote graphics engine to DX10 more than one year after initial release of the simulator and older addons work normally. There are problems with models created and compiled for FS2004, but probably not because it was impossible, but rather they hadn't got enough time to do it right. Anyway, it shows that graphics can be upgraded without loosing compatibility with older content, it just depends on how big the changes will be and how much time ED will be willing to spend to support previously released addons.

[GGTharos]

I would certainly hope so, and so long as ED provided the appropriate weapons and armor modeling (probably not to the tune of SB PRO, but who knows?) you could build your tank and drive it too!

 

So, make some nice pits for all those beautiful tank models, and we might end up with some human ground targets?

 

How far would it be possible to go? Could you, theoretically, make a cross between DCS and Steel Beasts (I mean conceptually, not factually)?

[sobek]

I doubt there will be much extra conent being created unless its payware as there are not many people with so much free time and will to make things from scratch for the community for free... not in flight sim community at least as we are in a small minority of PC gaming "population" :)

 

Have you seen what has become of sims like F4 or EECH thanks to the modding communities that these games spawned? Sure there wont be new stuff every day like with ArmA but im sure this game will attract a massive community of hardcore simmers, if it delivers. If possible, this could at least take some workload from ED and speed up future modules.

[Silver_Dragon]

one good example: Ships and Submarines, not more sitting duks targets, can added a insteresting playable plataform and new scope of warfare, need news phisics, underwather phisics and a weapon balistic improve, PCs has a valuable playable patform. Other interesting playable plataform for 3d Party has Fighters Bombers and Bombers, all examples has multiplayable platforms, a good future improve por DCS

Edited July 12, 2008 by Silver_Dragon

[Prophet]

I would certainly hope so, and so long as ED provided the appropriate weapons and armor modeling (probably not to the tune of SB PRO, but who knows?) you could build your tank and drive it too!

 

I sure hope you are right about that.

 

If that will be possible, then Red Flag will have much more meaning.

 

If the possibility is there to create ground unit 'cockpits', and then that unit is able to be chosen as a playable item, if those 2 things are possible, then ED should also consider a ground comms window.