Longevity of DCS electronic battlefield series?

[M31]

All this talk of what will come after DCS A-10 got me thinking, how long can ED keep producing new aircraft that are compatible with the old ones before technology takes over and far better graphics and processing power is available and the series would need to be started from scratch?

 

This is not a complaint of any kind, its just an observation.

 

Falcon 3 managed to add Fighting Tigers, Mig29 and FA/18 Hornet before calling it a day, Flight Unlimited managed Flight Unlimited II and III that were compatible with each other, MS (until recently) had to start from scratch every 2 or 3 years with Flight Simulator ... and there must be other examples.

 

It could be that we have reached or are nearing a plateau in graphics and processor technology and this could help the longevity of the series? certainly we seemed to have with single core speeds and current silicon technology and future sims will need to take advantage of multi core CPU and GPU's.

 

Don't get me wrong, the graphic engine in the DCS series is fine by me and I'd be happy with it for years, but sooner or later someone will push the boat out in this area and people will want the same or better.

 

Meanwhile I wish ED all success with the DCS series ... I've been away from military flight sims for a long time and it was BS and FC2 that got me back ... its good to be back in the saddle again :thumbup:

[EvilBivol-1]

Why create new aircraft for the previous engine if you can move the previous aircraft to the latest engine? ;)

[Eddie]

In theory, I don't see that there has to be an end point. As long as ED keep selling sims and making enough money then they will be able to make engine improvements as needed down the line.

 

ED have already stated that sometime in the future (a couple of modules down the line IIRC) they plan to produce an entirly new engine for the DCS series. Also as you have said yourself, the advance of PC hardware technology has slowed somewhat and become more stable compared to the early days of sims. But the thing is, a well made sim can last for years regardless of what happens around it. Just look at Falcon 4, it's still going now, and while it isn't even close to the original sim released in 1998 all the modifications have been done by the community for minimal cost, so imagine what a professional developer such as ED could accomplish in that time frame. I for one cannot wait to find out.

[Vitesse2l]

Good Question!

 

The whole DCS series must have been planned with consideration for evolution in the engine.

 

As far as models go, there's a time at which there's no point adding more detail (speck of corrosion on that rivet?).

 

There are always other areas to improve and features to add which might be labour intensive (but would really alter the game world without needing a radical graphic overhaul) - I'm thinking of different maps, ai behaviour, the mythical dynamic campaign...

[mobias]

I'm with ED on that one, these guys seem pretty smart with looking forward to the future of their products and they seem to have a game plan. I'm sure they have enough forethought and programming prowness to make sure they can simply 'drag and drop' the vehicles from one engine to another, with minor tweaking. I hope so, because graphics are a big deal to me. I have Falcon 4.0 Allied Forces but didn't really get into it [time being a big issue] but this Black Shark has pulled me in where it didn't due to the amazingly detailed and interesting heli it models. The first time I saw the 6 degrees of movement AROUND objects in the cockpit I was amazed, and begged the wife get me TrackIR5 for X-mas! heh

I've always wanted a sim that was hardcore[pushing every switch] yet didn't neglect the rest of the atmosphere. The sunrise clouds are a good example, until I went on the Courier mission, and was wow'd by textures of fog/clouds moving past the windshield in zero visibility! Well done ED.

[bfeld]

Hi,

 

I think it's possible to keep it compatible for a long time, which doesn't mean that all aircraft modules will be up-to-date. It all depends on the interface between world simulation and aircraft.

As mobias and others already stated: ED has probably been planning in a very forward-looking manner. So with every new module, the updated (or even recreated) world simulation might be just plugged in (of course it's not as easy as it sounds) for old modules, as long as the interface stays the same. However, simulation detail of older aircraft might sooner or later seem a little outdated compared to new aircraft.

 

Cheers, bfeld

Edited April 9, 2010 by bfeld

[Griffin]

Why create new aircraft for the previous engine if you can move the previous aircraft to the latest engine? ;)

It sounds easy when you say it. You propably know more than me but I feel sorry for the developers who will have to patch all those standalone modules to the new engine, for example, after 5 modules on the current engine. They will have to do a similar job as with FC2.0 (which took 9 months) but with much more complex aircraft and much bigger leap in engine technology while maintaining Starforce protection and so on.

[EtherealN]

Actually, Griffin, while I don't know how much FC2 time was spent porting to the new engine, I would like to point out that there were quite a few brand new features involved - completely new sound engine, mission planner, reworking and tweaking parameters for existing units and weapons etcetera. So I am not certain we should take the time of FC2 development as an indicator of the time to, say, port the Ka-50 to a future generation TFCSE.

[Griffin]

To me it sounds like a much bigger job especially when they have to patch each module free of charge to a whole new engine. I don't know, I hope it's that easy. :)

[EvilBivol-1]

I didn't say it was going to be easy (see my sig). :) Just pointing out the suble, but important difference in the design philosophy. In either case, to accomplish this technologically is a challenge and this is why we try to be careful about making promises about the future.

[M31]

I didn't say it was going to be easy (see my sig). :) Just pointing out the suble, but important difference in the design philosophy. In either case, to accomplish this technologically is a challenge and this is why we try to be careful about making promises about the future.

 

Heck ... if Ed can patch in left right tow brakes for rudder peddles, they can patch in the dual throttle usage for the X-65F HOTAS.

[Frederf]

Hopefully if the modules are truly modular, as the name suggests, the aircraft modules can be applied to whatever is the current base game engine. The worst case scenario would be old aircraft not updated to use the new features.

 

Ideally DCS will keep expanding such that a natural and enjoyable combination of aircraft can participate in the same situations.

[coder1024]

I don't think new modules will be free of charge, I think they'll charge for each module, only makes sense.

 

I would hope they can continue to evolve the engine as they add new modules so that the engine continues to be fresh with each module release.

 

If they're able to do that, it could extend indefinitely :)

[jctrnacty]

I think that ED could expand FC2 and BS with release of 3rd party tools especialy cockpit tools.

 

We can see that with the release of 3D toolsand terrain tools there is a lot ofnew mods like new SU-27,manchuria terrain, Afghan terrain, hawg is working on nevada terrain. I can onlysay its amazing what are those fans able to create.

[Frederf]

I don't think new modules will be free of charge, I think they'll charge for each module, only makes sense.

 

Naturally, to fly the A-10 you'd need to buy the A-10 module. But even someone with only the Ka-50 module should be able to fly in a multiplayer environment with players flying all the other modules in mixture. I believe this is the intention with DCS.

[Booger]

Nono, he means upgraded modules, not additional aircraft.

[msalama]

Why create new aircraft for the previous engine if you can move the previous aircraft to the latest engine? ;)

 

Exactly. Cue in modular software design.

[Frederf]

Nono, he means upgraded modules, not additional aircraft.

 

That's the confusion, because modules = aircraft at least in any proposed example so far.

[Booger]

I probably worded it poorly. What I meant to say was the aircraft "hooking" into the engine. I'm no software programming guru, so I'm sure I'm saying it wrong, even if I'm reading it right.

 

Read the post above yours.

Edited April 11, 2010 by Booger

[M31]

Actually ... I meant the bigger picture ... the much bigger picture.