DCS A-10C incorporated with FC2 multiplayer?

[kingneptune117]

I was playing in the 104th a few days ago and saw a few people talking about how the A-10C will be incorporated into FC2 multiplayer. They said that you would have a choice between flying the A and C variants.

 

Any evidence of this? I would like to believe them but it seems a little to good to be true.

[EtherealN]

We'll have to wait a while longer before anyone can say with authority whether A10C will be online-compatible with FC2.

[Aeroscout]

Here's what ED has said: "We will attempt to retain the comparability."

Translation: "Probably not."

 

The truth is, DCS A-10C is likely to add a while shitload of new things to DCS which would then have to be implemented in FC2. DCS is intended to be just that, DCS, not exactly a lock on sequel. I think of the lock on compatibility with DCS Blackshark as a bonus. I was really surprised to hear this had been done when info about FC2 was released. I would not count on Compatibility between lockon and DCS A-10C, but count on compatibility between the two DCS titles.

 

While I sincerely hope I'm wrong, I expect lockon compatibility and support to be dropped either after DCS A-10C is released or after the release of the next aircraft, which I expect to be a fixed wing fighter.

 

Aero

[kingneptune117]

Good thinking. I don't think it's appropriate to make any sort of assumptions at least until the new patch is released. I'm so excited for this aircraft. It's to bad the flight simulator market isn't larger. I think it is so small because most people do not want to take the time to learn how to fly something as intricate as the blackshark or warthog. Most people want pick up and play games such as modern warfare 2 or bad company 2.

 

Nothing wrong with those games, I own them myself. I just like being able to come home everyday from school and learn something new in a simulator. I find it sort of an adventure.

[kingneptune117]

Here's what ED has said: "We will attempt to retain the comparability."

Translation: "Probably not."

 

The truth is, DCS A-10C is likely to add a while shitload of new things to DCS which would then have to be implemented in FC2. DCS is intended to be just that, DCS, not exactly a lock on sequel. I think of the lock on compatibility with DCS Blackshark as a bonus. I was really surprised to hear this had been done when info about FC2 was released. I would not count on Compatibility between lockon and DCS A-10C, but count on compatibility between the two DCS titles.

 

While I sincerely hope I'm wrong, I expect lockon compatibility and support to be dropped either after DCS A-10C is released or after the release of the next aircraft, which I expect to be a fixed wing fighter.

 

Aero

 

 

Interesting. I can see why you would say the next aircraft may be a fixed wing fighter, as they have already done a chopper and are about to release a strike fighter.

 

I wonder what they will decide on. I would personally like to see either the strike eagle, eagle, or a viper. That's just my opinion. I think the strike eagle AKA "the flying tennis court" is really badass in terms of functionality, especially when it comes to avionics.

 

The viper is just an all around awesome aircraft to me, as it has proven itself time and time again in combat. Also, we have a lot of declassified information on its avionics and strike capabilities, so I think DCS would have plenty to work with.

[sweinhart3]

Here's what ED has said: "We will attempt to retain the comparability."

Translation: "Probably not."

 

The truth is, DCS A-10C is likely to add a while shitload of new things to DCS which would then have to be implemented in FC2. DCS is intended to be just that, DCS, not exactly a lock on sequel. I think of the lock on compatibility with DCS Blackshark as a bonus. I was really surprised to hear this had been done when info about FC2 was released. I would not count on Compatibility between lockon and DCS A-10C, but count on compatibility between the two DCS titles.

 

I would have to partly disagree here. FC2 had to be recoded to be able to communicate with BS. If A-10C is compatible with BS it should be compatible with FC2 as well because they would all have to share the same communications coding. If it doesnt share that same code base, it probably wouldnt be compatible with either one. While it probably still uses the same game engine, from pictures Ive seen there are going to be new or updated features that will set it apart from the other 2 sims. Course everything is speculation until ED says otherwise.

[Maximus]

too early to comments about this. slow down guys :D

[ESA_MistrL]

Yea, probably itґs time to slow down but .... who can slow down the thoughts? I definitly CANґT.

I was trained to face worst case scenario but talking about sims, lock on, DCS BS and DCS A10C Iґm only able to dream about a battlefield somewhere around Gaudata or wherever full of ground Units fierce-fighting, KA-50,s hunting armored or mech enemies, A10C,s providing CAS to their allies and a few MIG29,s patrolling the area searching for fresh flesh. And of course all of them flown by humans.

 

Letґs DREAM. Although whatever released will be more than welcome.

[Erdem]

Flaming Cliffs 3? :D

[roob]

DCS: FABAR (Far Away Beyond Any Recognition)

[Lightning]

It would not make any sense to develop DCS: A-10C without compatibility to Black Shark or FC2.

 

A stand alone A-10C Simulator would be a very bad choise, because many people like to fly with as many different human flown aircraft as possible.

 

Developing compatible Modules is the key to success in this business !

[EtherealN]

Lightning, a rhethorical question: are you a software developer yourself?

 

Reason for that question is that it's not an isolated question. ED doesn't sit down at a table and just say "well, this A10C, shall we make it compatible?" What they do is they sit down at a table and say "well, what of the internal feature wishlist will we be able to implement in A10C?"

 

And sometimes a given feature that's being investigated for implementation might end up breaking compatibility. Then they have to ask themselves: how much work would it take to port this feature to the other product(s)? Sometimes this just might mean they end up with a financially dictated choice between either including the new feature and thereby breaking compatibility or just ditching said feature altogether.

 

With the study sim market, it's not airquake that's the key to success - it's developing good high-fidelity simulations that offer synergies in the military markets.

 

All of that said - once again, it is way too early to speculate.

[sweinhart3]

In addition to that last note, for significant improvements to be made to a game engine or feature list, often times you have to break away from campatibility to implement it. It could just as easily turn out that A-10C will rather be intended to be compatible with future generations of the sim rather than previous generations. This equally makes as much sense as backwards compatibility.

[Panzertard]

Another saying is:

- Hope for the best, plan for the worst.

Basicly, to stick with another cliché: Time will tell. ;)

[DetroitDieseL]

I would think that another chopper would come into play like the Apache- I think that would be a better head to head deal then the A-10. But thats just me.

 

The BS is no match up against the A-10- as I'm thinking as far as MP mode- the 104th has slots set up as most of us know already- so I'm going to get in my F-15 and smoke a bunch of helo-heads, to easy- Theres other things that have to happen before choppers are used in combat and I believe air superiority has to be evident before helos are even used. Fixed wing escorts for helos isn't realistic.

[EtherealN]

Don't trap yourself in head-to-head thinking. The A10 would never get tasked with searching out and destroying KA-50's, that would be purely a target-of-opportunity deal. Air superiority has a similar impact on A10 and Su25 use as it does on Ka-50 use - with the caveat that the Ka50 and other helicopters have an easier time terrain masking than a fixed-wing jet.

[sweinhart3]

Don't trap yourself in head-to-head thinking. The A10 would never get tasked with searching out and destroying KA-50's, that would be purely a target-of-opportunity deal. Air superiority has a similar impact on A10 and Su25 use as it does on Ka-50 use - with the caveat that the Ka50 and other helicopters have an easier time terrain masking than a fixed-wing jet.

 

/agree

My biggest concern is that rightfully, the F-15 and Su-27 are going to be popular aircraft to fly and A2A is their sole purpose.

[flask]

I cannot help but think that It would be a shame for DCS to drop any of the current aircraft they have in their arsenal in future products, after all the trouble they took to develop those aircraft to the state they are at the moment and the foundation/data is there to improve on.................................., If you get my drift :smilewink:

 

Course who am I to say what DCS will do or not do, all I know is they have Improved/skinned up the SU25A, for a product that for all intents and porpose just had its Last patch.

[Udat]

I know about as much about programming as my mum do (not a whole lot,) and I wonder how DCS A-10C can be compatible with Black Shark and not FC2 when BS is compatible with FC2, if that made any sense..

 

Anyways, I'll consider any compatibility between FC2 and DCS products to be a bonus, but a damn sweet one at that. A thought that springs to mind: If DCS moduels are planned to be compatible with each other; and they'll try to make A-10C as well as BS compatible with FC2, where will it stop? Surely at the first DCS fighter?

[159th_Viper]

.....so I'm going to get in my F-15 and smoke a bunch of helo-heads, to easy.....

 

See - I would submit that you respect the Intention of the Mission Builder/Ambit of the Mission Brief and conduct yourself in accordance with said Brief. Would definitely make for more 'Realistic' Gameplay and as a consequence also allow Helo's to operate with a Degree of Freedom ;)

 

That said, the Counter-Argument would obviously follow that all Enemy is Fair Game, and rightly so........I am however cautiously optimistic that Mission-Builders are going to take all the above into account when structuring missions. Might take a wee while, but we will get Servers going where all three Airframes will operate well within the 'Battlefield', the converse also as a matter of fact holding true.

 

The above obviously does not preclude the possibility of a 'Lone' individual forsaking all other targets of opportunity and intentionally targeting Helo's well outwith the ambit of the Brief/Mission Map just for the fun of it - In such a case I'm sure a Trigger Spawning a S-300 site - repeatedly - within proximity of the offending Fast-Jet will not be frowned upon.....:D

 

It's not unlike the Servers at present......In a Toad you have a marginal chance of survival at best, dependant on the OPFOR Fast-Jet Pilots. Does not matter if you're in a Helo or a Toad - you're still equally Dead if caught! (Well, sometime the Fast-Jet goes down to a '73, but that's the exeption rather than the norm). That said, there's no wholesale Slaughter of Toads common-place, also largely attributable to the conduct of the LockOn Community. Many a Time I have been acknowledged by OPFOR Fast-Jet Pilots and left alone in cases where I was alone on the Server/No Top-Cover (3Sqn_El Diablo in a F-15 a recent example).

 

No - am firmly of the opinion that having the Sharks in the Air can only lead to better Gameplay. As for them being 'Easy Prey'.......Don't Count on It :)

[EtherealN]

I know about as much about programming as my mum do (not a whole lot,) and I wonder how DCS A-10C can be compatible with Black Shark and not FC2 when BS is compatible with FC2, if that made any sense..

 

FC2 and DCS:BS does not have a Charlie-model A10.

Patch in one into DCS:BS.

Don't patch one into FC2.

Voila! ;)

 

And yes, they would need separate patches and therefore separate development/QA cycles, which would cost money and hog (teeheh) resources. I don't know how big of an issue it would be though, since I don't have source access and wouldn't know exactly how big the risk of "breaking stuff" would be.

[DetroitDieseL]

See - I would submit that you respect the Intention of the Mission Builder/Ambit of the Mission Brief and conduct yourself in accordance with said Brief. Would definitely make for more 'Realistic' Gameplay and as a consequence also allow Helo's to operate with a Degree of Freedom ;)

 

That said, the Counter-Argument would obviously follow that all Enemy is Fair Game, and rightly so........I am however cautiously optimistic that Mission-Builders are going to take all the above into account when structuring missions. Might take a wee while, but we will get Servers going where all three Airframes will operate well within the 'Battlefield', the converse also as a matter of fact holding true.

 

The above obviously does not preclude the possibility of a 'Lone' individual forsaking all other targets of opportunity and intentionally targeting Helo's well outwith the ambit of the Brief/Mission Map just for the fun of it - In such a case I'm sure a Trigger Spawning a S-300 site - repeatedly - within proximity of the offending Fast-Jet will not be frowned upon.....:D

 

It's not unlike the Servers at present......In a Toad you have a marginal chance of survival at best, dependant on the OPFOR Fast-Jet Pilots. Does not matter if you're in a Helo or a Toad - you're still equally Dead if caught! (Well, sometime the Fast-Jet goes down to a '73, but that's the exeption rather than the norm). That said, there's no wholesale Slaughter of Toads common-place, also largely attributable to the conduct of the LockOn Community. Many a Time I have been acknowledged by OPFOR Fast-Jet Pilots and left alone in cases where I was alone on the Server/No Top-Cover (3Sqn_El Diablo in a F-15 a recent example).

 

No - am firmly of the opinion that having the Sharks in the Air can only lead to better Gameplay. As for them being 'Easy Prey'.......Don't Count on It :)

 

If I'm RTB'ing and I come across a helo- its toast, the BS is no match at all to a Fast Mover. Even if the FM is unarmed, it can just out manuever it and be gone.

 

I'm just wondering why ED doesn't release another helo counterpart DCS before moving on to FM'ers- then concentrate on all the FM'ers. Don't get me wrong- I'm all about the A-10, I just think it would have been more efficient.

 

I just don't see how in MP that helos and FM'ers could be in combat all at once unless there are triggers set to make one team achieve air-superiority

allowing them to deploy helos. Or else it will just be a waste of equipment- manpower- money.....

 

Unless there are two separate theaters of combat on the same server leaving the FM'ers out of fuel before they reach the helo combat airspace................

 

Just thinking out loud.:huh:

[159th_Viper]

I just don't see how in MP that helos and FM'ers could be in combat all at once...

 

And this is different to Bombers vs Fighters (Status Quo at present) how?

[GGTharos]

If I'm RTB'ing and I come across a helo- its toast, the BS is no match at all to a Fast Mover. Even if the FM is unarmed, it can just out manuever it and be gone.

 

Yes, but you have to come across it first. Helos are easy prey, but hard to find: They can't run, but they can definitely hide, and very well at that ( ... until someone incorporates rotor doppler that is.)

 

I'm just wondering why ED doesn't release another helo counterpart DCS before moving on to FM'ers- then concentrate on all the FM'ers. Don't get me wrong- I'm all about the A-10, I just think it would have been more efficient.

What is more efficient in reality is that ED gets contracts for the military sim market, and then transfers this knowledge to us, the entertainment market. The next plane is not dictated by what you want there to be or what you think is more efficient: It is dictated by the military contract at hand.

 

I just don't see how in MP that helos and FM'ers could be in combat all at once unless there are triggers set to make one team achieve air-superiority

allowing them to deploy helos. Or else it will just be a waste of equipment- manpower- money.....

Not really. Things seem to be working out well so far.

 

Unless there are two separate theaters of combat on the same server leaving the FM'ers out of fuel before they reach the helo combat airspace................

 

Just thinking out loud.:huh:

Also not really. Plus that's a silly way to do things, just IMHO.

All you need is proper escort ... too bad that most people don't have the faintest clue on how to do it except 'uh I have to fly right beside it' when escort is mentioned though ...

[EtherealN]

I just don't see how in MP that helos and FM'ers could be in combat all at once unless there are triggers set to make one team achieve air-superiority

allowing them to deploy helos. Or else it will just be a waste of equipment- manpower- money.....

 

Unless there are two separate theaters of combat on the same server leaving the FM'ers out of fuel before they reach the helo combat airspace................

 

Seriously, like I was saying before: don't trap yourself in head-to-head thinking.

 

Helicopters can operate in the same theater as fighters in the same way as any and all other aircraft can operate in that theater: they will use what means they have to either hide or defend, and they'll communicate with CAP to facilitate this.

 

If I'm RTB'ing and I come across a helo- its toast, the BS is no match at all to a Fast Mover. Even if the FM is unarmed, it can just out manuever it and be gone.

 

Who cares if the jet can leave? The point isn't that the Ka-50 would attack and kill the jet. The jet is simply higher up on the food chain. First of all - to toast said helicopters while RTBing you need to actually find it. This is difficult unless the helicopter pilot is absolutely clueless, and while you are RTBing you won't be doing detailed radar scans of every hill and building from multiple angles to make sure nothing is hiding behind them, right? That would be a very very long RTB. ;)

 

And again: the helicopter does not have to be able to kill it's flying opposition. It's not the point. The point is that it can hide, and it is fantastically effective as an anti-armor platform. ;)