update january 15

[Krippz]

A-10A, A-10C, A-10UNGH.... whats the difference?

If there would be Su-17 or Mi-24, I' would buy every version :)

And, unlike A-10XYZ, there are other aircraft that are/were operational in more then one country. Thats why I am happy about FC2. Although it features some oddities, it gives you more fun - and choice - for the same price :)

 

:music_whistling: I guarantee that you will be flying the A-10C...

[beers]

Is there any chance that the new FC would be related to the DCS graphics/sim engines? Meaning, would installing the new FC include any enhancements to DCS? I understand that the plan has been that installing DCS A-10 is going to give BlackShark the newer engine, and honestly, i'm a total rotor-head and I'm not all that interested in any fixed-wing, but I've been planning to purchase A-10 just to get whatever enhancements would make BS smoother. I'd be happy to purchase FC if it will enhance BS, but if not, i'm disappointed but patient :)

[sobek]

Is there any chance that the new FC would be related to the DCS graphics/sim engines? Meaning, would installing the new FC include any enhancements to DCS? I understand that the plan has been that installing DCS A-10 is going to give BlackShark the newer engine, and honestly, i'm a total rotor-head and I'm not all that interested in any fixed-wing, but I've been planning to purchase A-10 just to get whatever enhancements would make BS smoother. I'd be happy to purchase FC if it will enhance BS, but if not, i'm disappointed but patient :)

 

The modules will be standalon, IIRC. That means there will probably be a patch for BS, no need to install the A-10 to get the newer engine.

[element1108]

A-10A, A-10C, A-10UNGH.... whats the difference?

If there would be Su-17 or Mi-24, I' would buy every version :)

And, unlike A-10XYZ, there are other aircraft that are/were operational in more then one country. Thats why I am happy about FC2. Although it features some oddities, it gives you more fun - and choice - for the same price :)

 

To even ask what the difference is you should set aside an afternoon and do some reading on WIKI man ;). :smartass:. There is a substantial difference between the SU-25 and the SU-25T/TM etc. I'm hoping we see an MI-24 in the future as well...I can imagine what it would be like fighting the torque on that thing! :)

 

DCS will not make the most popular planes/choppers, but they will model whatever plane to the highest fidelity and as an aviation fan that should almost warrent the $39.99 USD price tag. Considering most FSX models are between $29-$79 for "highly realistic" models.

 

I hardly heard of the KA-50 before I started reading about the SHARK...I'm still not a huge fan of it, but I ADORE flying it! :):joystick:

 

Shoot I want to fly right now!

 

GO!

[SUBS17]

Why, how much did you lose..;)

 

mmm mission planner, that sounds like a good thing.

 

No its not how much he lost its probably how much he owes.:D

[Speed_2]

Well, just for the record, I also couldn't care less about FC2.0... I only fly study sims. However, I'm not going to begrudge ED for developing a product that alot of people want! I just hope they get back and start focusing on DCS only soon.

 

Mission planner sounds like a nice improvement. How about a better mission debrief system as well?

 

On a side note, this is the ED forums where FC and LOMAC have had a home for many years now. The vast majority of the people on this forum might be screaming for FC2.0, but don't see how you guys can claim that the majority of DCS: BS flyers want it. The population of this forum is LOMAC/FC biased.

 

In fact, I'm hoping that the FC2.0 doesn't come for quite a long time because I'm afraid that all the missions we've spent so much time building will become incompatable with DCS/FC2.0. Does anyone know for sure or not if this will happen?

[EtherealN]

The vast majority of the people on this forum might be screaming for FC2.0, but don't see how you guys can claim that the majority of DCS: BS flyers want it. The population of this forum is LOMAC/FC biased.

 

You can't counter made-up statistics with other made-up statistics. :P

 

As for how we can say it: it is only with very very few exceptions that I find a DCS user that did not get excited about FC2. So based on available data I'd say the majority of DCS users want it. If nothing else then to be able to fly DCS online with players as top-cover.

 

As for incompatibility, as far as I know there will be no need to re-write DCS missions after this. I don't know "for sure", but do remember that it is FC that is being brought to a new generation engine - not DCS:BS which already has that engine. I guess it's possible that there has to be a bit of crosspatching (but again, that's not known yet, at least not to me), but this should then not be worse than the vanilla-to-1.0.1 transition. A little bit of conversion and your missions will be good as new. And besides, I kinda hope that it does end up going that way, since then I would hope that ED is able to implement the mission planner for DCS:BS as well. One can hope. :)

Edited January 18, 2010 by EtherealN

[theGozr]

I think it's real good to have FC 2.0 and some focus on it since a lot of people don't care much for K50 and A10...yet...

[Duke49th]

So based on available data I'd say the majority of DCS users want it. If nothing else then to be able to fly DCS online with players as top-cover.

 

 

No.

 

Majority of DCS user that came from LockOn/FC want it. ;)

 

DCS user from Falcon and/or other sims and/or new to sims don't (because most of them wouldn't/can't use it. They/we need other things that are much more important.);)

Edited January 18, 2010 by Duke49th

[EtherealN]

As I said - based on available data. ;)

You can only act on the data you have available to you.

 

And you missed another point I made as well - it's not only about wanting to fly FC2 yourself. It's also about being able to operate your Shark online with humans for both top-cover and the OPFOR that you need to be protected from. Of course it would be "better" to have a set of DCS products for the aircraft in FC2 instead - but that's just not going to happen right now since the development work (even if sufficient information was made available to ED) would be prohibitive. Couple years down the line I don't doubt that I too will consider FC2 "redundant", but until DCS has had time to mature into a couple of fast-jets FC2 will be a nice thing to have around.

Edited January 18, 2010 by EtherealN

[Steel Jaw]

I'm very dissappointed that this FC2 venture is getting priority, obviously they expect FC2 to generate more revenue than the DCS A10 (IMHO).

[GGTharos]

FC2 is something the community asked for.

[EtherealN]

Mower, is there anything strange in the product that is closest to completion getting first priority?

 

I can imagine Wags and the crew sitting at the morning meeting table saying something like this: "Right boys, FC2 is nearing completion, so let's not bother working on that one since there's more to do on the A10. We'll wait with completing the thing that's almost done until the bigger job is complete."

 

As for generate more revenue? FC2 will retail at 15 dollars, A10C is a fullprice product. The decision is not based on "we think FC2 will make more money", it's based on "FC2 is closest to completion".

 

If you have two reports you need to finish for your boss at work, and one is almost done and the other is half-done (or whatever percentage you prefer), do you drop the almost done one or do you put a good record on and do some overtime to make sure it gets done so you will then be able to concentrate fully on the one remaining report?

 

EDIT: And do remember that since one of the points about FC2 is to bring FC to the current generation TFCSE, and that for this reason there are good possibilities of new functionality that is coded for FC2 being easy to plug into DCS:A10C? In a sense, part of the beauty of this is that they'll be able to give us MORE functions in the DCS series precisely because FC revenue will cover parts of it.

Edited January 18, 2010 by EtherealN

[Total]

All of the anti-FC'ers out there need to realize one simple thing:

 

The Saitek X65F will be shipping with a demo of LockOn. This will bring attention to ED for those who haven't heard of it or been here in a while. This also brings potential for added interest in the DCS series (present and future).

 

LockOn and Falcon both fall short of being high fidelity simulators. Their cores were written long ago for hardware that could not handle a fully developed, high fidelity simulator. Where one lacks, the other picks up - and vice versa. Each has their strong points and reasons to play. The only problem with Falcon I see if the fragmentation of the community due to no more official updates. AF, OF, etc they all kinda split everyone.

 

I honestly have enjoyed many hours in both. I really do wish this AF vs LO feud would come to an end. It's so very "internet" if ya know what I mean ;)

[Feuerfalke]

All of the anti-FC'ers out there need to realize one simple thing:

 

The Saitek X65F will be shipping with a demo of LockOn. This will bring attention to ED for those who haven't heard of it or been here in a while. This also brings potential for added interest in the DCS series (present and future).

 

LockOn and Falcon both fall short of being high fidelity simulators. Their cores were written long ago for hardware that could not handle a fully developed, high fidelity simulator. Where one lacks, the other picks up - and vice versa. Each has their strong points and reasons to play. The only problem with Falcon I see if the fragmentation of the community due to no more official updates. AF, OF, etc they all kinda split everyone.

 

I honestly have enjoyed many hours in both. I really do wish this AF vs LO feud would come to an end. It's so very "internet" if ya know what I mean ;)

 

Actually most of the statements above are not LockOn vs. Falcon, but LockOn vs DCS. ;)

[Duke49th]

Etheral, is it strange that some people are really dissapointed about ED's plans and behaviour?

 

Look, I personally, fight for an own Forum at http://www.buddy-spike.de/vb/ (biggest(only? :)) german Falcon4 community) and in our own virtual online squad (49th Black Diamonds)

 

I was one of the loudest that said that DCS-Series (BS and upcoming modules) will be the next study flight sim that will kick Falcon4's ass....latest in the next 1 or 2 modules.

 

They make us an extra Forum (both, in Buddy-Spike.de and in our Squad Forum) because we hyped Black Shark and DCS and the plans and promises ED made.

 

And what happend?

 

After a short time of playing with the Kamov, when some of us was able to fly it, to use the weapon and so on. We wanted to do more.

We want to fly good missions, not only training stuff.

 

But how? Who will build the missions? Who have the time to build days over days on missions that are flown in an hour or so? And only once or twice before they were boring.

 

We really stuck in having no content! Trying to make interesting missions are pure frustrating. (And besides: What about all the promised SDK stuff?)

Even the simplest things are not working. (Waypoints with stop&go for example)

 

There are too many things that killing the joy. Bad performance (fps), missing functions in ME, no ai radio chatter, no dynamic campaign (SP&MP), no debrefing in MP, Arcadic/cheating MP mode (respawn via rejoin Aircrafts), Arcadic/cheating kill messages in mp (you have to edit files to prevent it)...

 

And that are only the MOST important things for interesting and ambitious Multiplyer Gaming for Squads. Better not start complaining about all the "small" things...

 

 

I mean, take a look in this Thread: Missions/Campaigns Directory

That says all:(

Go there and look how "many" missions are build and shared in over 1 year of BS is out. Who want to make missions...with this kind of ME, the engine and its limitations?

 

 

It is very frustrating if you spend money and freetime in your hobby (playing sims) and you have to detect that your hopings getting delayed again and again or even destroyed.

 

 

I hope you understand me and what I want to express, with my crappy english skills:music_whistling:

Edited January 18, 2010 by Duke49th
correcting typo's and so on..

[Renato71]

FC2 is something the community asked for.

 

Among other things :smilewink:

 

A-10 lovers are taking this quite hot-headed, not giving any space to the option that others may be well informed, reading books since the times before the Internet (yes, there were such times), but they just do not care about it. I have no intention to buy, fly, google or wiki about A-10. I know what is to know, I just don't care about it. I care/want Su-17 and Mi-24, or any other European plane/helicopter. I'll save my money for that :)

[Krippz]

Among other things :smilewink:

 

A-10 lovers are taking this quite hot-headed, not giving any space to the option that others may be well informed, reading books since the times before the Internet (yes, there were such times), but they just do not care about it. I have no intention to buy, fly, google or wiki about A-10. I know what is to know, I just don't care about it. I care/want Su-17 and Mi-24, or any other European plane/helicopter. I'll save my money for that :)

 

Wanna try to be a bit more open minded :D

[element1108]

Dcs wouldn't exist I feel if it weren't for lockon. And for those who haven't played lockon the su25t is an outstanding flight model and to be combat effective takes quite a bit of study and aviation skill.

 

The flight sim community is tiny and it's nice to have a number of quality products to choose from. F.c 2 will give shark and "study sim" heads a chance to have player fight/strike support in an online community. If it weren't for dcs a modern day flight "study sim" wouldn't be realized and you'd be chasing the ever lasting development of fighter ops or jet thunder for a modern high fidelity study sim.

 

It's not about what you want or what I want. It's about what dcs decides and we roll with that. They take all the risk and we in the end get a solid product at a pricepoint under $40.

[159th_Viper]

....It's not about what you want or what I want. It's about what dcs decides and we roll with that. They take all the risk and we in the end get a solid product at a pricepoint under $40.

 

Absolutely :thumbup:

 

Fundamentally a Simple Concept that Seems so Hard to Grasp for Some.....Patience is a Great Virtue Indeed!

[EtherealN]

Etheral, is it strange that some people are really dissapointed about ED's plans and behaviour?

 

Yes.

You are saying that it's understandable that people are upset about ED listening to the requests of their customers? People have been asking for an update to FC for a long time, and I find it very very odd for people to be dissapointed by a company listening to it's customers.

 

Look, I personally, fight for an own Forum at http://www.buddy-spike.de/vb/ (biggest(only? :)) german Falcon4 community) and in our own virtual online squad (49th Black Diamonds)

 

I was one of the loudest that said that DCS-Series (BS and upcoming modules) will be the next study flight sim that will kick Falcon4's ass....latest in the next 1 or 2 modules.

 

They make us an extra Forum (both, in Buddy-Spike.de and in our Squad Forum) because we hyped Black Shark and DCS and the plans and promises ED made.

 

And what happend?

 

After a short time of playing with the Kamov, when some of us was able to fly it, to use the weapon and so on. We wanted to do more.

We want to fly good missions, not only training stuff.

 

But how? Who will build the missions? Who have the time to build days over days on missions that are flown in an hour or so? And only once or twice before they were boring.

 

Lots of people. There is a multitude of mission makers at the various squads that have dedicated servers - if you run dry and don't find their missions in a forum, ask them for copies of the mission files. Or harvest them from your own install after flying on that server. :P

 

(And besides: What about all the promised SDK stuff?)

 

In development in some cases, and already released in other cases (like in the terrain case where there's current developments being done on terrain for Nevada, Afghanistan, Spain and Hungary).

 

There are too many things that killing the joy. Bad performance (fps), missing functions in ME, no ai radio chatter, no dynamic campaign (SP&MP), no debrefing in MP, Arcadic/cheating MP mode (respawn via rejoin Aircrafts), Arcadic/cheating kill messages in mp (you have to edit files to prevent it)...

 

I don't suffer bad performance except in cases of severely overloaded missions or a few cases of identified bugs that are being worked on. AI radio chatter - you were talking about multiplayer, right? Well okey, that is a cheap shot, but I just couldn't resist. Especially since one of the advantages of FC2 is specifically that when playing multiplayer you'll be able to get radio chatter from human players flying completely different types of aircraft working as top-cover for you.

 

In, for example, Falcon, how often do you have player-driven Apaches to talk to? How often do you have to work with player-driven A10's?

 

I mean, take a look in this Thread: Missions/Campaigns Directory

That says all:(

Go there and look how "many" missions are build and shared in over 1 year of BS is out. Who want to make missions...with this kind of ME, the engine and its limitations?

 

Yes, and one forum is of course a complete list of all missions ever made, right?

Come on. I've played MANY missions online when just bored and selected a server at random and found a mission that I couldn't find in that forum, simply because people are making missions - lots of them. But they are not necessarily residents of this forum, so it's not certain that they would publicise their missions here. Surf around and if you find a server running a mission you like, ask the owner of the server for a copy or, for that matter, connect to the server and copy it from your own computer. ;)

 

I hope you understand me and what I want to express, with my crappy english skills:music_whistling:

 

I think I understand you - but I do not agree with you.

[Speed_2]

Duke49,

It may help to realize that some of the improvements being made in FC2.0 may carry over to DCS- such as the mission planning screen. Also, some people who are flying DCS will get a realism improvement while flying with pilots in FC2.0 because a human controlled aircraft overhead is much more realistic than an AI controlled fixed wing aircraft. Still, as a fellow study sim fan, I agree or partially agree with you on many of your points.

 

But after waiting over 10 years for the next jet fighter study sim, I'm not going to begrudge ED for making FC2.0 and making me wait a few additional months. If they can make a profit from it, and they obviously think they can, that just improves the health of the company which in turn improves the likelihood we will see more advanced study sims from them, right? Just don't expect me to buy it or really care much about it.

[Duke49th]

They take all the risk and we in the end get a solid product at a pricepoint under $40.

 

1. You forgot all the people who bought new hardware for their computer to be able to run BS with acceptable fps. And also all the input hardware(HOTAS, TrackIR and so on.);)

 

2. It is solid, but unfinished in my AND in many other people's opinion.

 

 

People have been asking for an update to FC for a long time, and I find it very very odd for people to be dissapointed by a company listening to it's customers.

 

 

No one says that we are dissapointed because of this! I never would do.

 

I and others are dissapointed of the priority of ED's developement. Thats all.

1st A-10 and 2nd FC2.0 and we(at least we both :)) would not discuss now;)

 

Lots of people. There is a multitude of mission makers at the various squads that have dedicated servers - if you run dry and don't find their missions in a forum, ask them for copies of the mission files. Or harvest them from your own install after flying on that server. :P

:thumbup:

Good call...

Where is the mission cache? Is it the temp folder?!? Seems like Trackfiles only...no names, just date+time as filename.

 

 

 

In development in some cases, and already released in other cases (like in the terrain case where there's current developments being done on terrain for Nevada, Afghanistan, Spain and Hungary).

The only one released SDK yet.;) They never said that they release it shortly...sure...

 

 

I don't suffer bad performance except in cases of severely overloaded missions or a few cases of identified bugs that are being worked on. AI radio chatter - you were talking about multiplayer, right? Well okey, that is a cheap shot, but I just couldn't resist. Especially since one of the advantages of FC2 is specifically that when playing multiplayer you'll be able to get radio chatter from human players flying completely different types of aircraft working as top-cover for you.

 

In, for example, Falcon, how often do you have player-driven Apaches to talk to? How often do you have to work with player-driven A10's?

 

No, I talked about AI (Artificial Intelligence) Radio Chatter. Not human;)

 

AI Radio Chatter is not possible because there is no dynamic battlefield/campaign.

 

And even when you put in thousands of Air&Ground units, you never will hear them talking. You never hear some Flights calling for help. You never will hear AWACS telling you that Bandits are inbound. You never will hear Tanks calling CAS. etc. etc.

 

 

Yes, and one forum is of course a complete list of all missions ever made, right?

 

Come on. I've played MANY missions online when just bored and selected a server at random and found a mission that I couldn't find in that forum, simply because people are making missions - lots of them. But they are not necessarily residents of this forum, so it's not certain that they would publicise their missions here. Surf around and if you find a server running a mission you like, ask the owner of the server for a copy or, for that matter, connect to the server and copy it from your own computer. ;)

 

You completely miss the point.

 

Even when there are 100+ missions all over the internet, which I doubt!!

 

It is absolutely annoying for many of us, making missions. And hey, I make missions in ArmA since OFP! You know that demonic editor, scripting language and nutty engine behviour and bugs??:D But we are not talking about strange behaviour...we are talking about missing functions!!! That is much more worse then some bugs which can fixed.

 

For lonewolfes or public player it might be okay. But for a big Online Squad it is neccesary to make interesting and/or dynamic missions/campaigns.

And not to hopping through a few servers and grab missions from where you have no Idea if their quality is good.

 

 

I think I understand you...

 

I'm really not sure;) It is not the thing with the mission. It is not the thing with the radio chatter etc. It is the sum of all together that makes long time multiplayer gaming for a online squad magotty (hope that expressions is correct!?)

 

 

 

Duke49,

It may help to realize that some of the improvements being made in FC2.0 may carry over to DCS- such as the mission planning screen. Also, some people who are flying DCS will get a realism improvement while flying with pilots in FC2.0 because a human controlled aircraft overhead is much more realistic than an AI controlled fixed wing aircraft. Still, as a fellow study sim fan, I agree or partially agree with you on many of your points.

 

But when comes the improvements? When comes the mission planner? With A-10 or later? Or, other then stated, with a patch before the a-10 comes?

There is no official statement, which tells me that it will not come before A-10. Earliest date...

 

AND: I am interested in multiplayer gaming only. You see, I absolutely know what you mean. But I don't know a single Teammate(from our 90(!) pilots) that have FC ;)

Edited January 18, 2010 by Duke49th

[element1108]

I didnt forget that, the upgrades don't benefit dcs at all man, so that point is useless. They take all the financial risk developing a consumer version of a military product in a market that not only is virtually non existant, but also extremely volitile with people such as yourself who seem to never be satisfied and complain about what they or 90 people in thei "squad" want. No offense, but it's elitist and agravates me.

[EtherealN]

1. You forgot all the people who bought new hardware for their computer to be able to run BS with acceptable fps. And also all the input hardware(HOTAS, TrackIR and so on.);)

 

2. It is solid, but unfinished in my AND in many other people's opinion.

 

I bought new hardware for DCS:BS. This is hardware that, at this point, is no longer produced and only sold on surplus supply. Even without my customary overclocking (DCS is part of my stresstesting :D ) it performs marvellously. This is hardware that at the time of purchase (a year ago) cost me less than 1000 euro in spite of 25% VAT. My "performance threshold" is to maintain 30 FPS averages on a typical mission with no stuttering.

 

When you consider what this simulator actually "simulates", as opposed to looking up on a table format like certain other "simulators", that is very very good performance.

 

Feel free to compare with the performance of UbiSoft's HAWX game. That thing, which doesn't simulate at all, has virtually the same requirements and recommendations! Hardware costs is NOT an obstacle to DCS. (In fact, I used to run it quite fine on my 2GHz laptop. It's just that I continually made sure that it wasn't wasting resources through bad registry or other common signs of bad computer maintenance.)

 

No one says that we are dissapointed because of this! I never would do.

 

I and others are dissapointed of the priority of ED's developement. Thats all.

1st A-10 and 2nd FC2.0 and we(at least we both :)) would not discuss now;)

 

Pulling the specific numbers out of my ***, but they are illustrations:

Time required for finishing FC2: X

Time required for finishing DCS:A10C: X*10

 

You'd have ED delay FC2 because you want the A10C? Consider what this would mean in diminished revenue streams, which means loss of liquidity, loss of revenue potentials, and so on.

 

AND YOU HAVE STILL NOT NOTICED THE FACT THAT MUCH OF THE DEVELOPMENT IN FC2 CARRIES OVER TO DCS:A10C.

Sorry for the capslock there, but seriously... It's been mentioned five billion times yet people still seem to think that

 

it's "either FC2 or A10". Those who think like that do not understand what it actually means to port FC2 to the curent generation TFCSE and how that relates to the other products that use that underlying framework - like DCS:BS, the A10C DTS for the US ANG, and DCS:A10C!

 

:thumbup:

Good call...

Where is the mission cache? Is it the temp folder?!? Seems like Trackfiles only...no names, just date+time as filename.

 

When you connect to a server, the first thing it does is to load the mission file. I believe it ends up in the temp

 

folder.

 

The only one released SDK yet.;) They never said that they release it shortly...sure...

 

Well, they could put extra energy on it if you accept a delay on DCS:A10C. ;)

 

AI Radio Chatter is not possible because there is no dynamic battlefield/campaign.

 

I'm not going to bother linking to the debate where the Falcon people ended up talking about how good it was that the orders for the dynamic campaign could be changed because the AI itself would issue stupid orders. There's a reason why ED decided that it's not worth the time and money.

 

But when comes the improvements? When comes the mission planner? With A-10 or later? Or, other then stated, with a patch

 

before the a-10 comes?

There is no official statement, which tells me that it will not come before A-10. Earliest date...

 

You like the mission planner?

Say THANKYOU to the FC2 people. It's those people that requested it, time and again.

 

AND: I am interested in multiplayer gaming only. You see, I absolutely know what you mean. But I don't know a single

 

Teammate(from our 90(!) pilots) that have FC ;)

 

So wait, we here have someóne that is only interested in multiplayer, but is being pissed off about ED doing the work to give him human-controlled top-cover on the online servers?

 

That just doesn't compute. ;)

Edited January 18, 2010 by EtherealN