AFM?

[combatace]

Can I hope any AFM upgrade for F-15C and Su-27?

[EtherealN]

Unlikely. Constructing an AFM is a major job.

[combatace]

ED already did it for a non commissioned plane, Su-25T, so don't you think they should do it for these two plane, atleast.

[GGTharos]

AFM is the domain of DCS.

[EtherealN]

ED already did it for a non commissioned plane, Su-25T, so don't you think they should do it for these two plane, atleast.

 

I seem to remember that the AFM was introduced in a separate product and the work was covered through purchases of the product... ;)

 

As for what they "should" do, I think ED "should" do what works financially. And I'm quite happy with the DCS concept.

[combatace]

I've heard a lot about DCS but have never taken keen interest in knowing about it. So can you tell me the whole concet of DCS.I know about the work being done on A-10 but thats just A-10 and I guess it won't have F-15C or Su-27 flyable in it. Does DCS series mean that different SIM will be launched with a single A/C playable and they all will be compatible with each other. Like DCS-KA50, DCS-A10A than DCS F-15C and DCS Su-27 and they all linked togather through multiplayer networks.If this is the concept than its a hell of a concept and will be a revolution in A/C sims. That means I will have to buy the sims of planes I like and rather not bother about other planes.

Edited June 14, 2010 by combatace

[topol-m]

Does DCS series mean that different SIM will be launched with a single A/C playable

 

That`s the idea. A single aircraft but modeled in detail, with afm, most of the essential non secret systems, etc., basically much more realistic than FC series.

 

...and they all will be compatible with each other.

Like DCS-KA50, DCS-A10A than DCS F-15C and DCS Su-27 and they all linked togather through multiplayer networks.

 

I doubt that. Even if we are talking about compatibility between the first 2-3 DCS releases, the technology evolves. I guess the 4th or 5th DCS onwards will be using a different engine so I think full compatibility with the first editions will be impossible, but hey you never know :) I`m not an expert, ED has the final word. But it will be great to have at least a helicopter/CAS/fighter environment...

[Boberro]

Conception is merge all addons together with planes which have been made with maximum avaiable fidelity. This way you get AFM, realistic avionics and other elements.

 

You buy plane which you like and play it with another people.

 

So far there will be F-15 and Su-27.

[Boberro]

I doubt that. Even if we are talking about compatibility between the first 2-3 DCS releases, the technology evolves. I guess the 4th or 5th DCS onwards will be using a different engine so I think full compatibility with the first editions will be impossible, but hey you never know :) I`m not an expert, ED has the final word. But it will be great to have at least a helicopter/CAS/fighter environment...

 

That can be true, however ED could have already separated core of Ka-50 systems and in the future just simply copy that with small re-work. At least hope so...

[JLZ]

I guess the 4th or 5th DCS onwards will be using a different engine...

 

You think so? I don't think so :( Let's hope it will be your way (so) :D

[EtherealN]

That can be true, however ED could have already separated core of Ka-50 systems and in the future just simply copy that with small re-work. At least hope so...

 

Depends on how much things are developed. You can compare to the introduction of the new sound engine into DCS:BS with the 1.0.2 patch - it resulted in a megapatch. Imagine if we later get a multithreaded physics engine replacement: there would be yet another megapatch to keep things "in sync".

 

Now, it might be possible to do some such things in a way where an older product doesn't actually need the new component to be transplanted into it, but rather have a sort of translation layer inserted that allows it to read the output of a newer product. But I feel a bit torn about whether that is a good way to go since it adds complexity that may cause things to break.

 

That said, I share your hope. :)

[combatace]

If the DCS series SIMs will not be compatible with one another than it will loose its glow very fast as it happened with Ka-50.Many people are dedicated to choppers but most are not, like wise flying only A-10 with all its details will be great but will get boring after some time because what one will be doing is shooting tanks or armour, throwing mud everytime and not much. The reason why Lockon has same attraction is because of the variety of planes that one can use, because even though people have 1 plane as their favourite still sometime change of type of job is needed. I like to fly Su-27 but some times I even fly A-10 or Su-25T or F-15 or even Ka-50, well thats my opinion I don't know about others though.

Edited June 14, 2010 by combatace

[element1108]

Having a third of fourth DCS module is a long ways away right now. Lots can happen in that time, look how much has changed since KA-50 came out. I never thought I'd be flying a KA-50 inside a lock on environment.

 

As far as high fidelity flight simulations go...I don't think DCS will loose it's glow all to quickly even if they're not compatible. There is without a doubt some commercial viability to a game like lockon that has a number of different planes to choose from. But for a hardcore simulation fan, it's going to take a year or so to master one high fidelity plane. All aspects, flight, weapons, tactics and avionics etc.

[EtherealN]

Combatace, you are reading too much into what was written.

 

No-one's saying "DCS series SIMs will not be compatible with one another". I am saying that there is not guarantee that "all DCS series SIMs will not be compatible with one another". This is basic fact - 10 years down the line computing power will have risen to roughly 32 times what we have now. It is impossible to give 100% certainty on what will be done at those timescales.

 

As for losing "glow very fast as it happened with Ka-50", what planet are you on? :P That product is still selling, new users are getting it constantly, and you seem to be under the impression that "shooting tanks or armour" ("or?") is somehow a detriment to product sales. Some of the most sold simulators in the 90's "golden age of sims" were actually ground-attack sims. Hind, Longbow, Longbow2, A10 Attack, A10 Cuba, Tornado, Strike Eagle etcetera to name but a few. Sure, it's not what everyone wants, but fighter jets aren't what everyone wants either.

 

What I'm just pointing out is that a DCS product 10 years down the line possibly not being compatible with all previous DCS products could happen for the very same reason why Doom3 is not online compatible with Doom2. (Both still being actively played, by the way.)

 

DCS:BS will not "lose it's glow" until someone (like ED, name a competitor that has a shown capability of competing that is currently developing for that market) makes a "better" attack helicopter simulator. See how many people in this forum label themselves a "rotorhead". I would personally have dusted off my Longbow 2 discs if it wasn't for DCS:BS, even though that one is practically ancient by today's standards.

Edited June 14, 2010 by EtherealN

[Scudslaker]

Combatace, you are reading too much into what was written.

 

No-one's saying "DCS series SIMs will not be compatible with one another". I am saying that there is not guarantee that "all DCS series SIMs will not be compatible with one another". This is basic fact - 10 years down the line computing power will have risen to roughly 32 times what we have now. It is impossible to give 100% certainty on what will be done at those timescales.

 

As for losing "glow very fast as it happened with Ka-50", what planet are you on? :P That product is still selling, new users are getting it constantly, and you seem to be under the impression that "shooting tanks or armour" ("or?") is somehow a detriment to product sales. Some of the most sold simulators in the 90's "golden age of sims" were actually ground-attack sims. Hind, Longbow, Longbow2, A10 Attack, A10 Cuba, Tornado, Strike Eagle etcetera to name but a few. Sure, it's not what everyone wants, but fighter jets aren't what everyone wants either.

 

What I'm just pointing out is that a DCS product 10 years down the line possibly not being compatible with all previous DCS products could happen for the very same reason why Doom3 is not online compatible with Doom2. (Both still being actively played, by the way.)

 

DCS:BS will not "lose it's glow" until someone (like ED, name a competitor that has a shown capability of competing that is currently developing for that market) makes a "better" attack helicopter simulator. See how many people in this forum label themselves a "rotorhead". I would personally have dusted off my Longbow 2 discs if it wasn't for DCS:BS, even though that one is practically ancient by today's standards.

 

 

welly explanation...

 

nice described..

 

how to loose glow, if there is no other product in sight yet, which can beat this hardcore sim?:joystick:

[Bwaze]

"10 years from now..."

 

DCS will be in a pre-beta of the third aircraft (after Ka-50 and A-10C). And Storm of War: Battle of Britain will be just 2 weeks 'till release!

 

;)

 

Sorry, but sim market is sooo slow I really lost all my high hopes in waiting for the new releases. I guess making games has become too complicated.

[rattler]

Dare I mention also the fact that ED and DCS:BS may not be in buisness at some time in the future also. I dread to think that might happen. Seeing as we are such a small percentage of the market, will it remain viable for a small company like ED to fend off the wolves, I don't know but I sure hope so. I really don't see anyone else knock on the combat flight Sim. door. Keep going ED:thumbup::thumbup:

[nomdeplume]

The reason why Lockon has same attraction is because of the variety of planes that one can use

 

I don't really agree with that. The only reason the DCS modules will stop being played by the fans of that aircraft is if the module goes too long without any updates and becomes old and crusty... like say, Falcon 4. Even then, it'll still get played, since it's very unlikely there'll be anything that can really replace it.

 

But if ED can keep improving the base engine and allowing previous modules to benefit from that, then there's no reason DCS: Black Shark won't continue to be the go-to game for chopperheads for many years to come. They've set the bar very high and it's highly unlikely anyone else will be able to best them, and if they keep improving the engine and backporting it to previous modules then it's not merely a high bar, but a moving one.

 

The problem is building a workable business model around continually improving a game you've already sold. I for one would be more than happy to pay for additional content and engine updates every few months, or even pay a monthly subscription for an "approved by ED" extra missions/campaign service, but I suspect I'm in a tiny minority of customers who would.

[combatace]

I guess hardcore fans can pay for a patches with high improvements, like I can pay ED 50$ more for AFM of Su-27 and F-15C but thats just me and I don't know how many will agree to that. Also, you guys must have heard about outera and thats a real big leap in SIM programming. Also, ED should make its company co-operative and at least the models that we get as free mods will be charged and thus ED can concentrate on game programming and get relieved of making models and that might make their progress a bit fast.

Edited June 14, 2010 by combatace

[winz]

But those patches don't fall from the blue sky, someone in ED has to make them. That means move someone whos working on A10C (which has greater selling potential) to work on AFM for FC2 (which only few people would buy), thus delaying the A10C for quite long. Not very efficient decision.

[GGTharos]

Not only that, but how is adding AFM to any flyable a patch in any way, shape or form?

[combatace]

I was talking about future SIMs that ED will make. Co-operative always yields better.

[element1108]

I guess hardcore fans can pay for a patches with high improvements, like I can pay ED 50$ more for AFM of Su-27 and F-15C but thats just me and I don't know how many will agree to that. Also, you guys must have heard about outera and thats a real big leap in SIM programming. Also, ED should make its company co-operative and at least the models that we get as free mods will be charged and thus ED can concentrate on game programming and get relieved of making models and that might make their progress a bit fast.

 

Outera is YEARS away from becoming anything commercial so it's hard to really ponder too heavily on that engine. As far as the future of DCS, well apart from A-10C it's really hard for any of us to predict or understand what the future will bring. I wouldn't look too far into the future if I were you either, because that will always disapoint in a medium that changes on an hourly basis.

 

The chances of anyone's favorite plane to be made with DCS high fidelity are slim, but when you have a high fidelity plane that might be 5th on your list, how is that not still the COOLEST THING EVER? That's how I feel anyway.

 

I think ED has shown us they have good intentions when it comes to compatibility. I never thought the KA-50 would ever be flyable in a LOMAC environment and that was realized. That's evidence enough ED knows what the consumer would like to see. Making it happen is another thing. For every module that comes out would mean every aspect of the previous module would have to be patched. They haven't said they won't do it (they've shown us they have done it so far)...but saying something in this medium and doing something else is signing a death warrent. SLAG threads a thousand miles long will pop up every day saying "YOU PROMISED US THIS AND YOU LIED LIED LIED LIED"...etc.

 

Just relax and go with the flow, who knows the world may not exist in 10 years so worrying about what MODULE is compatible with what inside an uncertain future is a little insignificant and pointless.

 

Perhaps too you'll see that everything will be compatible with everything and maybe ONE days we'll have what ever simmer wants. A full virtual battlefield, with infantry, planes, helicopters, armor etc ALL...MANNED BY people like YOU and I...and THEM!:joystick::joystick:

[combatace]

I agree to what ever you said and for the last para of your post I hope it goes true.

[EtherealN]

Also, you guys must have heard about outera and thats a real big leap in SIM programming.

 

Big leap when it's done and easily integrated, yeah. Thing is that if integrated into ED products it'll replace a pre-existing component and every part of the simulator that talks to that component (which includes physics, sound and graphics engines) would have to be reworked to co-operate with the replacement. Re-do it on all older products that you want to stay compatible with.

 

...or just continue to improve the current terrain engine.

 

Also, ED should make its company co-operative and at least the models that we get as free mods will be charged and thus ED can concentrate on game programming and get relieved of making models and that might make their progress a bit fast.

 

Absolutely not. Relying on third parties for core assets is suicide unless done through procuring an existing product (like licencing Bink video, SpeedTree, DirectX etc).

 

...and do you really think making the artists not have a job anymore would make the programmers work faster? The artists at ED are not slowing down programming, since the alternatives are not to have those individuals working on graphics assets or working on programming - simply because they are artists, not programmers.