Plane creation tools, where are they ?

[Boberro]

Yo,

 

Long time ago it has been said we'll get tools for plane creation in DCS world. It's passed very long time and we still can't download tools for that. So................... When will you release them? Waiting for new plane minimum 1.5 - 2 year is too long...:joystick:

 

S!

[Luse]

3DS Max is the tool needed to create new models.

 

However, I believe ED Stated AFTER all of the DCS Modules were completed all the tools would be released.

 

The scenery tools are already available, Only a matter of time.

[Moa]

Hi Bob, most of the aircraft files are editable. What is missing is:

 

* documentation on what the parameters mean. For example: what does the aerodynamic parameter "Czbe" mean and what are the units (usually SI it seems). Note: The ED programmers have also fallen into the classic trap of naming their variables after the mathematical symbol rather than the quantity it represents, eg. if it was called elevatorPitchMoment we wouldn't be asking the question (except about the units).

 

* Cockpits don't seem to be truly moddable (except for simple texture replacement). The MFD positions cannot be changed. If they are no one has demonstrated how to do it. Until it is documented then it cannot be considered 'moddable'.

 

* The ability to use do multi-role aircraft. Partially this is tied into the cockpits but also it is things like the AI can use HARM/ALARM etc but players cannot, even if they have the correct pods (as listed as a requirement in the weapon database). Same goes for Harpoons etc. Stuff like that only works if pre-designated in a mission.

 

I've only been modding aircraft (Harrier and F-18) for a week and had some success but it all is Sisyphean and despite pushing through it I know that there are things that I just won't be able to get going (eg. Harpoon). Kinda makes me feel like switching my efforts to X-Plane where third parties routinely produce stuff like this F-16:

http://store01.prostores.com/servlet/x-planestore/Detail?no=237

 

LockOn has the best modern combat of all the sims out there and I want to persevere with it for that reason. LockOn's advantage won't last long if x-plane ever concentrate on adding better combat elements (they have very simple missiles and bombs at the moment - but one could argue that you don't get much more in LockOn for many user-modded aircraft).

[GGTharos]

As simple as lock on missiles might be, a lot of work has gone into them.

[Boberro]

3DS Max is the tool needed to create new models.

 

However, I believe ED Stated AFTER all of the DCS Modules were completed all the tools would be released.

 

The scenery tools are already available, Only a matter of time.

 

If it is true, we'll never see tools cause modules (logically) will never end at all ;P

 

Hi Bob, most of the aircraft files are editable. What is missing is:

 

* documentation on what the parameters mean. For example: what does the aerodynamic parameter "Czbe" mean and what are the units (usually SI it seems). Note: The ED programmers have also fallen into the classic trap of naming their variables after the mathematical symbol rather than the quantity it represents, eg. if it was called elevatorPitchMoment we wouldn't be asking the question (except about the units).

 

* Cockpits don't seem to be truly moddable (except for simple texture replacement). The MFD positions cannot be changed. If they are no one has demonstrated how to do it. Until it is documented then it cannot be considered 'moddable'.

 

* The ability to use do multi-role aircraft. Partially this is tied into the cockpits but also it is things like the AI can use HARM/ALARM etc but players cannot, even if they have the correct pods (as listed as a requirement in the weapon database). Same goes for Harpoons etc. Stuff like that only works if pre-designated in a mission.

 

I've only been modding aircraft (Harrier and F-18) for a week and had some success but it all is Sisyphean and despite pushing through it I know that there are things that I just won't be able to get going (eg. Harpoon). Kinda makes me feel like switching my efforts to X-Plane where third parties routinely produce stuff like this F-16:

http://store01.prostores.com/servlet/x-planestore/Detail?no=237

 

LockOn has the best modern combat of all the sims out there and I want to persevere with it for that reason. LockOn's advantage won't last long if x-plane ever concentrate on adding better combat elements (they have very simple missiles and bombs at the moment - but one could argue that you don't get much more in LockOn for many user-modded aircraft).

 

Thanks for your input, however I see missing few stuff like code... How user could write a script for plane (I think it is something more than LUA)? Also as you wrote many things in LUA files are not described, so documentation is needed.

 

Hope to see all things which let you create planes soon, community would start make F-16 as an example.:)

[Robin_Hood]

A good deal of things is still hard-coded. But, the scenery tool has been released after Black Shark, so I'm hoping that DCS: A-10C Warthog will bring along one or more new tools. That would really be great :thumbup:

[rattler]

A good deal of things is still hard-coded. But, the scenery tool has been released after Black Shark, so I'm hoping that DCS: A-10C Warthog will bring along one or more new tools. That would really be great :thumbup:

 

Just a question. What tools would you expect to get because they have released the A10C? More modules to come both fixed and helo. Just a question.:)

[MadMaxter]

Just a question. What tools would you expect to get because they have released the A10C? More modules to come both fixed and helo. Just a question.:)

 

All of them:)

I agree with the person that said if we are waiting for the modules to end, then we will never get the tools to complete a fighter from tip to tip, top to bottom, stem to stern. Because the modules will always be coming. During one's construction another will be research and development will begin before the current project is even released. It is safe to say that no one will make a mod of the A10 after this one, because ED has made it as good as it can get. So the modules will simply end any need for community development of that particular module. So, if you are working on an Eagle, forget it, ED will do it and make money for it. Which is fine, its their right to do so. Hell, if they did the tomcat and the hornet next, no one would be more pleased than me. But, unfortunately that won't happen. So what's left for those of us who would like to mod things that will never be in a module? That is what the tools are really for, after all.

 

Max

[Grimes]

All of them:)

I agree with the person that said if we are waiting for the modules to end, then we will never get the tools to complete a fighter from tip to tip, top to bottom, stem to stern. Because the modules will always be coming. During one's construction another will be research and development will begin before the current project is even released. It is safe to say that no one will make a mod of the A10 after this one, because ED has made it as good as it can get. So the modules will simply end any need for community development of that particular module. So, if you are working on an Eagle, forget it, ED will do it and make money for it. Which is fine, its their right to do so. Hell, if they did the tomcat and the hornet next, no one would be more pleased than me. But, unfortunately that won't happen. So what's left for those of us who would like to mod things that will never be in a module? That is what the tools are really for, after all.

 

Max

 

I agree completely. Even if a community mod were to compete with an official addon I believe there is room for both to coexist. Afterall a doubt a community mod will have access to the same documents as Eagle, let alone accurately create a physics model to the extent Eagle does. Furthermore the "official" version would probably be packed with so much more goodies than a mod version it would be hard to pass up. In the end I'd think the community would look at the mod version as more of a "demo" of the Eagle version.

 

The thinking would be, "hey, this is free but isn't quite as accurate as the one I gotta pay for.." (A few weeks later)... "Damn I REALLY like this aircraft, I'm gonna go buy the DCS version of it."

 

The trick is to make the official version a much better value, and with the resources that could work on it at Eagle, that shouldn't be a problem.

 

Also major mods that ADD to the game and simply not REPLACE stuff in the game could never hurt. Its been historically proven that major mods have kept games fresh and increase the lifespan of a popular game. We could make a DCS mod based on the Vietnam War... spawning an entirely new game within the game. The possibilities would be limitless.

[Boberro]

These tools would be really nice for LO. We know it is almost sure ED will not make MiG-27 flyable, Su-22, F-4 Phantom, MiG-21 ect... These are old planes but classic ones of Cold War era where everyone must know I think.

[Moa]

Even if ED did make an official release for an aircraft there are so many variants of modern aircraft even it doesn't make sense for ED to do it someone in the community might. For example, even if ED did a Block 52 F-16 people in the community might be inclined to model the 'A', Block 40, Block 60, F-16I ....

Stuff that doesn't make sense commercially for ED yet someone might want to do the aircraft their own Air Force uses (it's not just people from the USA and Russia that play LockOn, even if those two are the single biggest markets).

[rattler]

All of them:)

I agree with the person that said if we are waiting for the modules to end, then we will never get the tools to complete a fighter from tip to tip, top to bottom, stem to stern. Because the modules will always be coming. During one's construction another will be research and development will begin before the current project is even released. It is safe to say that no one will make a mod of the A10 after this one, because ED has made it as good as it can get. So the modules will simply end any need for community development of that particular module. So, if you are working on an Eagle, forget it, ED will do it and make money for it. Which is fine, its their right to do so. Hell, if they did the tomcat and the hornet next, no one would be more pleased than me. But, unfortunately that won't happen. So what's left for those of us who would like to mod things that will never be in a module? That is what the tools are really for, after all.

 

Max

 

Max,

You are getting elegant in your post,LOL, Yes I absolutely agree with you. We can wish all we like but we have to look at what is realistic. ED as long as they are working on modules, we will never see tools that would allow 3 party modding to rival their work. Yes we have modders that could do just that given the tools. ED knows this, they are not stupid. If they did give the tools, it would be a sure bet you would not be seeing these same things coming to market from ED. There is always a way to get accurate information on a particular a/c. ED does not have an exclusive on this information. It is out there to be found and it can be found.

 

I don't think in my own opinion that I would like to see earlier a/c modded. I think we should look at advancing Combat Simulation, not looking behind to far at yesterday.

 

Max, your a not behind,LOL. VNAO is awesome. I mean going back to like F-86 etc. Nice yes. What flies today is what is interesting, at least to me. I am sure I just generated another topic of discussion.LOL.;)

[aaron886]

Look at the history of flight simulation, and consider the most successful sims. Nearly always, they are the ones that are open to be modified by their community. The most successful and long-lasting sims are those with fairly open architecture. I don't want to see the DCS series becoming something like Microsoft Flight Simulator with literally thousands on thousands of crap addons and an over-developed payware community. However, what puts life into a simulator is the community and its ability to interact with the simulator.

 

Releasing development tools wouldn't hurt ED's market, in my mind, as long as each new module has in it some changes to the engine itself. It's been steadily updated since DCS:BS and it is clear to me there is no intention of simply developing new aircraft without updating the engine to match. As long as the engine is improving, ED obviously has the first go at creating new aircraft based on engine updates... and updating the development tools to match the latest in the engine would be up to ED at the completion of a new module. Additionally, nobody knows creation of aircraft for DCS like ED does, because it's all proprietary creation methods and software.

 

On that note, I highly doubt any 3rd-party developer could match the complexity and detail ED can, and certainly to model systems and visuals with the fidelity A-10C seems to have would take a 3rd-party dev much longer.

 

My suggestion would be to release the development tools, of course. I would say that the tools should be sent only to candidates who can prove they can create quality work, and that such work would be done without profit. (Or any currency exchange.) People like that are visible all across this community. The people who would benefit from the development tools are the most dedicated modders and community members who want to maximize their experience within the simulator, and do it for entertainment and simulation's sake, not for monetary gain. Regardless of the simulator's sales, these are the people that keep a community alive, and history shows that a community keeps a simulator alive. (Read: Falcon.) If a very high quality 3rd-party aircraft is created, that simply increases interest in the DCS platform and will generate a wider fan-base and more sales. In the simulator market, which has shrunken so much in the last 10 years, flexibility and a sim experience that speaks to a broad range of interests has proven to create the most notable and profitable simulators. MSFS is a case in point. It may not have combat, but it does EVERYTHING else, and literally throughout its "reign" survived largely due to its open architecture and 3rd-party work. Unfortunately, it devolved into a lot of payware, but it doesn't have to be that way. In today's flight simulation market, visibility and community are everything.

 

 

 

My point is, releasing the development tools selectively would benefit everyone by growing the community and transitively increasing sales and interest in ED and the DCS platform.

Edited August 3, 2010 by aaron886

[GGTharos]

Look at the history of flight simulation, and consider the most successful sims. Nearly always, they are the ones that are open to be modified by their community. The most successful and long-lasting sims are those with fairly open architecture.

 

Such as?... X-Plane? The resque chopper one?

 

 

My point is, releasing the development tools selectively would benefit everyone by growing the community and transitively increasing sales and interest in ED and the DCS platform.

 

 

This is probably easier said than done. With the engine evolving, the tools, and previous aircraft mods may also become obsoleted and require maintenance.

[aaron886]

Nobody's asking for a perfect system and 100% support from ED... just a chance to expand our experience with the simulator. The tools may not stay up to date, but trust me when I say the modding community would be happy with even a little extra help in the realm of cockpits or flight modeling. If it meant long waiting or learning to "get around" limitations due to outdated development tools, I can tell you this modding community is well versed at that.

 

Not sure about your first statement, although a large part of X-plane's market share was stolen by MSFS because it had built its community already. As I said, MSFS is a great example of a sim that lasted because of its community. X-Plane is growing now for the same reason. (Other examples include SFP1, or good old well-hacked Falcon.)

Edited August 3, 2010 by aaron886

[GGTharos]

Falcon is not a good example. The only reason the software has been maintained is because the code was stolen. It might be a good example of what happens if you release the source code for free, and that is about it.

[aaron886]

Maybe so. I would say it's an example of how long and widely a simulator can exist simply because of a small, dedicated modding community that isn't looking for profit. Maybe not the most ideal example.

[GGTharos]

Yeah, don't go there ... ;) Not only it took them a very long time to get it in the shape it is in right now, but there was a lot of fighting, issues with usability, and in the end it took an actual company to buy the rights to the code and make the whole thing stable.

 

Maybe so. I would say it's an example of how long and widely a simulator can exist simply because of a small, dedicated modding community that isn't looking for profit. Maybe not the most ideal example.

[Moa]

Yes, Falcon is a bad example. No one is asking for the source, just the ability to integrate.

 

At the moment, cockpits are the biggest obstacle followed closely by the limitations of weapons with aircraft (eg. the human flyable F-18 cannot used HARM, or Harpoon etc while the AI aircraft can). Once those are moddable a fair chunk of modder whinging would go away.

 

Edit: Adding static cockpits would be an inprovement but the ability to put an arbitrary bitmap in a cockpit would be better (eg. you could have live MFDs). At the moment the reverse is possible, Shkval exported to bitmap. Would be nice to place an updateable texture at an arbitrary place within the cockpit surface.

Edited August 3, 2010 by Moa

[GGTharos]

The tools are still on the list of things to do AFAIK. When, I do not know.

I don't think there will be tools for the SFM planes, frankly.

[MadMaxter]

Max,

You are getting elegant in your post,LOL, Yes I absolutely agree with you. We can wish all we like but we have to look at what is realistic. ED as long as they are working on modules, we will never see tools that would allow 3 party modding to rival their work. Yes we have modders that could do just that given the tools. ED knows this, they are not stupid. If they did give the tools, it would be a sure bet you would not be seeing these same things coming to market from ED. There is always a way to get accurate information on a particular a/c. ED does not have an exclusive on this information. It is out there to be found and it can be found.

 

I don't think in my own opinion that I would like to see earlier a/c modded. I think we should look at advancing Combat Simulation, not looking behind to far at yesterday.

 

Max, your a not behind,LOL. VNAO is awesome. I mean going back to like F-86 etc. Nice yes. What flies today is what is interesting, at least to me. I am sure I just generated another topic of discussion.LOL.;)

 

 

We are infact working on a retro mod for the FJ3 Fury and the Mig15. Its a fun guns only mod. But thats kind of the point really. VNAO exists to offer a special niche. As does other squads. A squad might focus on dogfighting for online competitions in a favorite plane. Or work on co-op missions. VNAO focuses on naval aviation realism. Thats the wonderful part of the community. There is something for everyone.

 

Having said that, being able to create complete aircraft brings the community around to full circle. Then there would be something for everyone to create. Retro jets, to modern fighters, to large bombers to even the aerobatic jets for VFAT. All of these things we have now are the best we can make, but not complete. Sure, some will be better than others, but thats kind of the point. One person makes a Fury, the second guy likes it, but thinks he can do better and gives it a shot, and so on. Competition like that will breed quality and quantity.

 

Max

[aaron886]

The tools are still on the list of things to do AFAIK. When, I do not know.

I don't think there will be tools for the SFM planes, frankly.

 

 

I think anyone serious enough to be using the tools will rather put up the effort to work with an AFM aircraft. Thanks for the answer!