Announcing Flaming Cliffs 2.0

[brewber19]

For what little my opinion is worth...

 

Free For All servers = fail, due to rambos and 'tards.

 

Squad servers = success, hopefully due to maturity and wanting to get some cohesion amongst units etc.

 

Whatever happens its win:win here...

 

(a) I am assuming ED get to test developmental/evolutionary multiplayer code of "DCS engine", which will provide them useful info for next engine etc.

 

(b) Armchair Simulation pilots will benefit from the opportunities provided through access to improved mission building tools, as well as the opportunity to integrate all the various a/c roles (intercept, escort, ground attack, close air support, SEAD etc)

 

© Armchair Gamer pilots neither benefit or lose, because I doubt it'll much change things for them.

 

I'm a helinut and my weekend hobby is to fly IC powered radio controlled helis (pics here if you're interested), and yet as great as BS is...it just hasn't grabbed me like FC did. I played FC for 3 nights a week, every week pretty much, for three years. I've yet to play more than 10 times online with BS and offline is just pottering about (although I have spent 150+ hours skinning). I dunno why; I haven't immersed myself in BS like I did with FC (due to having a baby this year...well, not me, the missus ;)). I had a quick run around with my SU25T yesterday and it reinvigorated my interest in the sim straight away.

 

Roll on FC2 and a higher fidelity fast movers :D

 

Edit: In very primitive terms, a Free For All or Squad-based multiplayer server mission deconfliction could be achieved simply through seperation of starting positions from the FEBA. E.g...

- KA50s start >20km <30km from FEBA

- Su25A/T start >50km from FEBA

- Mig29 start >100km from FEBA

- F15 and Su27/33 start >150km from FEBA

Just an example you understand, but this allows everyone to get to the battle area to do their "jobs".

I'm sure all the MP server mission designers are already rubbing their grubby little hands together to figure out how to make use of the Mission Editor and its triggers (presuming all the triggers work in MP ;)).

Edited January 8, 2010 by brewber19
Added simple example on how MP servers could cope with various a/c

[Lucas_From_Hell]

I don't know why Ka-50 pilots are so worried about the compatibility.

 

If you're a fighter pilot and end up getting a lock on a Ka-50, you might consider gaining some altitude to avoid cars and trucks that might get in your way :music_whistling:

 

Plus, in a real environment, that's how it happens. Helicopters, tanks, fighters, bombers, transports... They all work together. Why it shouldn't be like this in DCS/LO 2.0?

 

Even with "Rambos" and etc., you shouldn't have much trouble in acomplishing your mission if you play the cards right.

[104th_Crunch]

There are other threads about the topic of having the Ka-50 with the planes from FC in multiplayer. Have a search and you will find interesting ideas. In the end, it's always better to have the option to do this. If you don't like them together, then just create a dedicated A2G mission and that's that. Options are good.

[Dr_Watson]

If they had made an advanced flight model for some more aircraft other than the SU25T, I would have been over the moon, I would have paid $50 just for a fighter with advanced flight dynamics but instead it looks like they have left them in their arcade state and concentrated on the bullets bouncing of objects correctly.

 

Is this an early April fools joke??

 

After flying the KA50, SU25T and IL2 4.09 only for a long time, I jumped back into the F15 and was completely shocked by how arcade it felt. Now I remember why I have not flown any of these basic models for about a year!

[Panzertard]

If they had made an advanced flight model for some more aircraft other than the SU25T, I would have been over the moon, I would have paid $50 just for a fighter with advanced flight dynamics but instead it looks like they have left them in their arcade state and concentrated on the bullets bouncing of objects correctly.

 

Is this an early April fools joke??

 

After flying the KA50, SU25T and IL2 4.09 only for a long time, I jumped back into the F15 and was completely shocked by how arcade it felt. Now I remember why I have not flown any of these basic models for about a year!

It's a patch / miniupgrade, not a new product.

DCS series is a new product, and you will see new flight models there - depending on what airframe they release in the series over time.

[Scarecrow]

@ Anyone with links to ED, will FC2.0 improve the centre spring effect for Force Feedback sticks like the G940? I would dearly love to have my stick work as intended in the FC2.0 and the DCS series of simulations.

As I'm primarily an offline Frog flyer FC2.0 has limited appeal for me but if it included a FFB upgrade it would certainly be much more attractive. I know one of the test team has a G940 and I hoped this was an indicator that ED might update the effects.

[4csNIp]

ED,we are still waiting.:mad:

[Glowing_Amraam]

ED,we are still waiting.:mad:

 

That's because we are still working on it. ;)

We don't want a buggy release, do we?

[Dr_Watson]

It's a patch / miniupgrade, not a new product.

DCS series is a new product, and you will see new flight models there - depending on what airframe they release in the series over time.

 

$15 for a patch?

 

I will wait for community feedback before getting it.

[Rikus]

@ Anyone with links to ED, will FC2.0 improve the centre spring effect for Force Feedback sticks like the G940? I would dearly love to have my stick work as intended in the FC2.0 and the DCS series of simulations.

As I'm primarily an offline Frog flyer FC2.0 has limited appeal for me but if it included a FFB upgrade it would certainly be much more attractive. I know one of the test team has a G940 and I hoped this was an indicator that ED might update the effects.

 

+100

 

EE.UU flight model sucks

 

Greetings

[Pilotasso]

ED,we are still waiting.:mad:

 

Patience is a virtue

[talisman]

$15 for a patch?

 

I will wait for community feedback before getting it.

 

I will be waiting at the door in my sleeping bag with $15 in my hand begging ED to take it from me.

 

Some people just dont get it do they?

[czarnyolek]

I will be waiting at the door in my sleeping bag with $15 in my hand begging ED to take it from me.

 

Some people just dont get it do they?

Get what? If this product is worth its price i buy it, if not, i'd not. Got it?

 

I will probably get it even if its not changing much, cos different interface alone is not enough, to draw 15 bucks out of me. Biggest difference for me will be dual core support as it will significantly increase fps on my machine :)

New map is also interesting feature as i don't care much about new su-25 3d model.

So for me its worth 15 dollas, but if someone else don't think its fair to pay that much for a patch, leave him alone. No need to attack anyone.

No one forces You people to buy it. Its your free will. Got it?

Edited January 10, 2010 by czarnyolek

[EtherealN]

It's not a "patch".

 

It migrates LO:FC to a whole new generation of TFCSE. Think of it like a "patch" that moves makes Quake run on the Quake2 engine, with a lot of additional improvements added to that.

 

There's a reason why the version numbering is "Flaming Cliffs 2.0" instead of "Flaming Cliffs 1.13". ;)

[Panzertard]

It's not a "patch".

 

It migrates LO:FC to a whole new generation of TFCSE. Think of it like a "patch" that moves makes Quake run on the Quake2 engine, with a lot of additional improvements added to that.

 

There's a reason why the version numbering is "Flaming Cliffs 2.0" instead of "Flaming Cliffs 1.13". ;)

Sorry my bad, I shouldn't have introduced the word patch in my post. :blush:

[Ramstein]

Will LO:FC and Black Shark connect to each other through FC 2.0?

 

In other words will BS and FC be all in one directory, or both keep their seperate directories? With a common link through the FC 2.0 patch?

:huh:

it would be nice to know so we can prepare for any changes on our hard drives and no have screwed up installs.

 

Not to mention screwed up Star Force installs between the two.

 

Thanx..

:joystick:

[talisman]

jesus - chill people.

 

All i was saying is that this patch will completely revamp the game and more importantly will allow even better MP environments. This alone is worth the $15. I dont care about the interface - the graphics or the shinyness of the aircraft.

 

Playing BS next to a SU - well thats well worth my $15 anyday.

[EtherealN]

You are making it more complicated than it has to be, Ramstein.

 

FC2 and DCS:BS will be multiplayer compatible. They will not connect "through" each other. Rather, they'll just be connected to each other when playing multiplayer. All that needs to happen for that to work is that they be able to connect to the same master server for listing online servers and have a common protocol for handling multiplayer traffic.

 

I would guess that DCS:BS gets a patch to ensure that it's network protocols are in sync with FC2's.

 

Think of it like this: an Apache web server and an IIS web server can talk to each other because they use the same standard and do the same job. No need for special connection stuff, they just talk with what they already have built-in.

 

EDIT: Note that the above is educated guesses from my part. I'm not an ED programmer and I haven't actually flown FC2 yet. But it's my understanding of how it is likely to work.

 

Sorry my bad, I shouldn't have introduced the word patch in my post. :blush:

 

No worries mate. Technically speaking it's applied the same way as a patch, so it's not "technically" erroneous to say that it's a patch. But it is colloquially erroneous, since most people associate the word "patch" to something like the DCS:BS 1.0.1 patch. So it's easier to make a distinction even if the word "patch" might be technically applicable.

 

Another "realworld" example of where that can get interesting is the whole thing with Windows Anytime Upgrade. Does the fact that it's possible to click a button and after some downloading and install work your Vista was turned into Win7 mean that Win7 is "just a patch"? Technically, yeah, you applied it like a patch, so it is. But it's still also a new operating system. :P

Edited January 10, 2010 by EtherealN
Clarification

[Ramstein]

ok,

 

try this again,,

 

I have both LO:FC and BS installed. We will be buying and installing a patch (call it what you like..). We will have an interface that links them all together? And through that interface, we can fly all of LO:FC an BS? We will not have to move LO:FC and BS to new directories?The Sims all stay where they already are?

[EtherealN]

From what I've understood, this is how it works:

 

You install DCS:BS, or already have it installed, in it's directory.

You then install FC2 in it's own directory.

 

If you want to fly DCS:BS, start it.

If you want to fly FC2, start it.

 

They are both still independent products. The only thing that is "changed" is that they will have the ability to talk to each other online. No linking or anything like that required, they'll just both talk to the same master server online and see which servers are online for them to access. That's it.

 

They are not integrated into becoming part of each other, just like DCS:A10C will not be integrated into DCS:BS - they are stand-alone products that can talk to each other online, ie they are "online compatible".

[Ramstein]

Cool..

:music_whistling:

 

thanx

to both,

EtherealN and Panzertard for help and clarifying..

 

 

to both

From what I've understood, this is how it works:

 

You install DCS:BS, or already have it installed, in it's directory.

You then install FC2 in it's own directory.

 

If you want to fly DCS:BS, start it.

If you want to fly FC2, start it.

 

They are both still independent products. The only thing that is "changed" is that they will have the ability to talk to each other online. No linking or anything like that required, they'll just both talk to the same master server online and see which servers are online for them to access. That's it.

 

They are not integrated into becoming part of each other, just like DCS:A10C will not be integrated into DCS:BS - they are stand-alone products that can talk to each other online, ie they are "online compatible".

[Krippz]

From what I've understood, this is how it works:

 

You install DCS:BS, or already have it installed, in it's directory.

You then install FC2 in it's own directory.

 

If you want to fly DCS:BS, start it.

If you want to fly FC2, start it.

 

They are both still independent products. The only thing that is "changed" is that they will have the ability to talk to each other online. No linking or anything like that required, they'll just both talk to the same master server online and see which servers are online for them to access. That's it.

 

They are not integrated into becoming part of each other, just like DCS:A10C will not be integrated into DCS:BS - they are stand-alone products that can talk to each other online, ie they are "online compatible".

 

Thank you; been fishing for an answer for about a month now. Thanks for clarifying that.

[IvanK]

Question to the Devs.

 

In FC2.0 has the nav bug been addressed. I am referring here to the range and Bearing being updated in real time once you go out of a Nav mode ?

[Panzertard]

Thank you; been fishing for an answer for about a month now. Thanks for clarifying that.

It's been clarified earlier in this thread I think, or was it in the DCS-variant maybe? Anyway, this thread is a 80 page monster, so no wonder you didnt pick it up :)

But yes, DCS and FC are separate products - and has to be treated as such.

[Nate--IRL--]

Question to the Devs.

 

In FC2.0 has the nav bug been addressed. I am referring here to the range and Bearing being updated in real time once you go out of a Nav mode ?

 

Good question.

 

Nate