ED's "Unannounced Project"

[EtherealN]

Something that would be interesting to know though would be what levels of freedom they have with the name and engine. F.ex, would their contract with Ubisoft (اللعنات عليهم) allow them to release an LO:FC-compatible product under a non-LO name?

 

I'd really love it if they were able to get full control of the brand.

 

But then again, they do (from my understanding) own rights to the technology so an expanded repackaging that uses DCS graphics updates would also be quite awesome.

[Nate--IRL--]

 

I'd really love it if they were able to get full control of the brand.

 

 

I believe this is key to re-establishing the franchise. As mentioned previously Lock On still has a sizeable following. ED could well capitalise on this brand awareness among the more casual simmer.

 

Nate

[Vekkinho]

Perhaps we should put you in a cage match with those demanding further development of the Lock On series? ;)

 

Please do...:music_whistling:

[Pilotasso]

(اللعنات عليهم)

 

interesting ....what is this you wrote in different "language channels"? :D

[EtherealN]

I just did a google translate for humorous effect. :P

[joey45]

From what I know [which is not alot] the only thing Ubisoft own is the name.

 

bit like Codemasters and BIS with Ofp.

 

EDIT: Don't hold me to that. Be better if someone from ED who knows more to verify it.

Edited October 19, 2009 by joey45

[EtherealN]

Ah, that would make "sense", yeah.

[AlphaOneSix]

It's a bad word in Arabic, basically, it means "curse them" although it can be translated a few different ways depending on context.

[71st_Mastiff]

interesting ....what is this you wrote in different "language channels"? :D

Aribic and it says shame on them..

[Feuerfalke]

Aribic and it says shame on them..

 

If you ask some customers, UBISOFT has the same meaning in Europe as well.

[maddogg]

"One ring to rule them all"?

[swepain]

Perhaps we should put you in a cage match with those demanding further development of the Lock On series? ;)

 

That would be fun, and some youtube vids of the fight, it would be UFC with a theme :megalol:

[muamshai]

You guys sound like grandmas and grandpas from old homes when you start to speculate

 

:D

[swepain]

that will never happen. The code has changed to much for DCS and LO to be combatale.

 

 

And u were saying ?? :doh:

[Skkuda]

Martillo 1 Wrote

cause I no longer fly SU-25/SU-25T for I feel it "simpler" than KA-50

 

I really often fly SU/SU-25T but what really makes me not enjoying it fully now, its the lack of 6DOF Freedom that Ka50 gives.

I Often found myself trying to twist my head as in the Ka50 Just to realize that Im not over a 6DOF Pit and the results are annoying.

Besides that The SU is a great game.:thumbup:

 

Skkuda

[MTFDarkEagle]

I heard from someone who heard from a guy I know that isn't his bro but thinks he is that may have overheard a conversation between two drunk former Spetsnaz Russian guys about some patches / stuff for Flaming Cliffs.

 

:lol::lol::lol::lol::worthy::rotflmao::thumbsup::notworthy:

 

this made me laugh SOOOO hard xxxxxD

Brilliant!

Edited November 25, 2009 by MTFDarkEagle

[Eldur]

Actually they said they hoped to release it 9 months after DCS:BS.

 

Yes. That would have been already. And even after the western release, 9 months are almost over. And what comes? An update for the old FC where only 2 versions of one plane actually have a FM. I dont consider the "Standard FM" to be one, it's rather an "invisible midair rail model" :D

I like FC, but the FM differece between the old Lock On planes and the Su-25 is like Red Baron I vs Rise of Flight.

 

And obviously the Work on FC 2.0 delays the work on further DCS stuff a bit.

[Dusty Rhodes]

"...obviously the Work on FC 2.0 delays the work on further DCS stuff..." Obviously eh? Ever think it might enhance what they are doing or be a part of a master plan of releases to maximize releases and quality?

[element1108]

Yes. That would have been already. And even after the western release, 9 months are almost over. And what comes? An update for the old FC where only 2 versions of one plane actually have a FM. I dont consider the "Standard FM" to be one, it's rather an "invisible midair rail model" :D

I like FC, but the FM differece between the old Lock On planes and the Su-25 is like Red Baron I vs Rise of Flight.

 

And obviously the Work on FC 2.0 delays the work on further DCS stuff a bit.

 

just to have the 25t and black shark together is worth the "additional" wait time for a10. Having rl strike fighters will add a great deal to black shark gameplay and visa versa.

Edited December 11, 2009 by element1108

[Sarge55]

I agree element, that is going to be great.

[EtherealN]

And obviously the Work on FC 2.0 delays the work on further DCS stuff a bit.

 

Like Dusty said: "obviously"? A statement like that requires quite a bit of insight into ED's organization and business plans. ;)

 

The really important thing to remember is that the 9 month plan was what ED hoped to do but some things can get in the way - for example military contracts, which often have a contract-stipulated date at which they MUST be completed. ED knew this might happen and for that reason they used careful language like "hopes" and "intends" about the 9 month plan.

[33 309th_Hedgehog]

A statement like that requires quite a bit of insight into ED's organization and business plans.

No, it does not necessarily, it depends on your assumptions.

 

It IS obviously: FC is a total different platform. Developing for that platform is of no worth for the DCS platform. And with limited ressources (number of programmers working for ED) you have to divide your development efforts on two distinct projects. Which MUST slow down the DCS project.

 

The only argumentation which would count against that would be (in my opinion) when the FC programmers, designers and project managers are totally different people than that working for the DCS project and they would not be interchangable. Then it would be of no interest in repect to the DCS project what the FC coders are doing because they do not provide capacity to the DCS project.

 

To state, what argument is the right one, I agree, you would have to have an insight into ED's personal and organisational structures.

[sobek]

It IS obviously: FC is a total different platform. Developing for that platform is of no worth for the DCS platform. And with limited ressources (number of programmers working for ED) you have to divide your development efforts on two distinct projects. Which MUST slow down the DCS project.

 

This is utter nonsense. How can it be a totally different platform and at the same time be MP compatible with DCS? FC2 is, simply put, an update for FC to 'post DCS: BS' TFCSE status (with some restrictions).

[kam]

Yep, it's the DCS engine with the FC planes basically, Chizh said so on the Russian side..

[EtherealN]

Sobek and thamuff speaks the truth - and Wags has also confirmed it here on the english part of the forum. Though technically it's not LockOn with the DCS engine, it's LockOn with the same generation of TFCSE as is used by DCS.

 

Therefore you should not be surprised if work done on FC2 carries over to DCS in the same way patch work for DCS:BS might carry over to DCS:A10C and the other way around.