About FAQ an compatibility

[Distiler]

First, thanks for the new FAQ!

 

http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=56699

 

Now, about this:

 

Q: Will DCS: A-10C Warthog be online-compatible with DCS: Black Shark and Flaming Cliffs 2?

A: We hope to be able to release a compatibilty patch for DCS: Black Shark after release. Compatibility with FC2 is unlikely.

 

I understand the language is a bit vague because in the end any combination could happen. Even the unlikeness of FC2 and DCS:A-10 being compatible.

 

Btw, "unlikely" means not planned or "will try at least one time"?

 

Another question:

 

If DCS:Ka-50 and DCS:A-10c are compatible through a patch, will this patched DCS:Ka-50 maintain compatibility with FC2? (I guess we can always create another installation with old patch tho not happy about it because it won't have updated graphics, etc.)

 

I think, meanwhile DCS series have no fighters (pure or multirole, and both american and russian), FC2 will be the real core of your community.

Edited August 8, 2010 by Distiler

[EtherealN]

First off: this is not official.

(Though the FAQ was run through the scrutiny of Wags and TFC/ED, my responses to your questions here should not be construed as official.)

 

I think that a patched Ka-50 that has compatibility with DCS:A-10C Warthog would not be able to remain compatible with FC2. There are several reasons for this, one of them being terrain covered in the products. However, you will obviously have the option of maintaining copies of both DCS:BS 1.0.2 and a theoretical 1.0.3, and select which one to play online depending on circumstances. I don't know if there will be additional problems associated with such a setup though, at this time.

 

As for what is the "core" of the community, please do not confuse the matter of "people who hang out on these forums" with "people who actively play the products". Remember that ED would definitely love to be able to keep all products compatible with each other, but there are both legal and technical obstacles to achieving this. Just don't make the mistake of thinking that the majority of online sim gamers want airquake - they want realistic simulations and they'll support those products that give them that. To put it in a slightly harsh way: the community isn't the most important thing - it has to come second to what works economically for ED through the synergies of military and consumer markets.

 

Finally: I realize I didn't really answer anything directly there. This is because I either don't know the facts with 100% certainty or no-one knows the facts. Whenever we talk about the future things will be uncertain.

[MTFDarkEagle]

In other words: "When it’s finished™" ;)

[EtherealN]

Yup. :D

 

Though technically, it's "When it's done™". :P

[MTFDarkEagle]

No no mate! You forgot some ;) its " When it's done�™©R"

;):P

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

** R being the r with a cirle around it, cant find it...--> registerd trademark duh"

[EtherealN]

Well, the trademark belongs to 3DRealms. :P

[MTFDarkEagle]

No way, it belongs here! It's the motto of motto's!

[159th_Viper]

You're both wrong!

 

In two weeks........:music_whistling:

 

 

 

 

 

 

:P

[MTFDarkEagle]

Whow!!! Now that's gonna trigger a lot of rumours ;)

[firefox]

When a new DCS product come out, would Black Shark for instance, need constant compatibility patching?

 

I would hate individually patching all DCS products to be compatible with one another for multiplayer.

[Nate--IRL--]

When a new DCS product come out, would Black Shark for instance, need constant compatibility patching?

 

I would hate individually patching all DCS products to be compatible with one another for multiplayer.

 

Yes, the idea is that the new Graphics engine, mission editor, terrain etc. is ported back into DCS black shark. Or another way of putting it is that the Ka-50 is brought into the new sim engine.

 

That is the central idea of DCS. The aircraft are modules that fit into an ever evolving simulation.

 

Nate

[shu77]

My understanding was that the engine in FC2 was limited in terms of the amount of terrain it could show, hence the removal of the Crimean, but that BS did not have that same limitation?

I could be wrong but that would explain the FC 2 unlikely statement at the start.

[firefox]

It was worried that, for instance if ED released module 7, I would have to install a 4gb+ 1.0.9 patch for black shark to get it to the same compatibility standard.

 

This could takes ages to install, may break current campaign progress or may even introduce bugs which were not in version 1.0.2. What do you guys think?

[Nate--IRL--]

My understanding was that the engine in FC2 was limited in terms of the amount of terrain it could show, hence the removal of the Crimean, but that BS did not have that same limitation?

I could be wrong but that would explain the FC 2 unlikely statement at the start.

 

BS and FC2 are the same, except for the aircraft included, with the same limitations with regard to the size of the terrain. The plan seems to be that the 64bit version of Warthog (+ eventual BS patch) allows for more terrain, by removing the memory address space limit present in the 32bit engine.

 

It was worried that, for instance if ED released module 7, I would have to install a 4gb+ 1.0.9 patch for black shark to get it to the same compatibility standard.

 

This could takes ages to install, may break current campaign progress or may even introduce bugs which were not in version 1.0.2. What do you guys think?

 

True, it might do as you describe, but then nobody is forcing you to install it. Finish your campaigns, then install it. Or even have 2 installs. You may even want to keep BS v1.02 to maintain compatibility with FC2 and have another install (v1.03) to be compatible with Warthog.

 

Nate

[shu77]

Ah, sounds like a good reason to be upgrading to 64bit windows then....

[EtherealN]

In my opinion there has never been a reason NOT to upgrade to 64-bit since around 2005, which is the time (roughly) when pretty much all consumer processors started supporting 64-bit instructions... ;)

[Nate--IRL--]

In my opinion there has never been a reason NOT to upgrade to 64-bit since around 2005, which is the time (roughly) when pretty much all consumer processors started supporting 64-bit instructions... ;)

 

I'd agree but for the fact I'd have to buy a new Joystick (no 64bit driver from Logitech :( ). But I was probably gonna do that for Warthog anyway :)

 

Nate

[Slayer]

Hopefully all you need to do is have a version of BS upgraded to 1.02 to stay compatible with FC2 then it allows you to install a 2nd copy to bring it in line with the A10 version of DCS. Not sure how the copy protection will work in this scheme though? Would you have to deactivate one install to play the other? Who knows maybee it'll never happen because it's a lot of code to rewrite but I'll be the first to pay for a DCS:BS 1.5 or some such to allow multiplayer with both modules.

 

I'd venture a guess that people will be busy with A10C for quite a while once it hits the market but even so FC2+BS takes it to a whole nother level. I play BS more now then I did in the past for that reason alone. Heck look at how many servers there are....

[sinelnic]

(no 64bit driver from Logitech :( )

 

I´m not sure what you mean, but I can confirm I´m running my G940 on Win 7 x64 no problem at all.

 

Also, VASI. I´m so happy you brought that into the sim, for those early series of visual touch and go´s to get used to the plane.

Edited August 9, 2010 by sinelnic

[Nate--IRL--]

Hopefully all you need to do is have a version of BS upgraded to 1.02 to stay compatible with FC2 then it allows you to install a 2nd copy to bring it in line with the A10 version of DCS. Not sure how the copy protection will work in this scheme though? Would you have to deactivate one install to play the other? Who knows maybee it'll never happen because it's a lot of code to rewrite but I'll be the first to pay for a DCS:BS 1.5 or some such to allow multiplayer with both modules.

 

You can have as many installs as you want, on the one activation AFAIK.

 

I´m not sure what you mean, but I can confirm I´m running my G940 on Win 7 x64 no problem at all.

 

Sorry I should have been clearer, I have an ancient FFB stick that Logitech no longer support. They have provided 32bit drivers for win7 but not 64bit drivers.

 

Nate

[RSharpe]

I really hope the game gets Steam distribution so that patching is kept as simple and automated as possible as DCS is constantly evolving.

[Speed]

As a suggestion for ED, maybe you shouldn't release FC2 compatability patch, but a much better option: downloadable content. For those owning DCS: A-10 or a compatable DCS: BS, you can pay like $5 and download a flyable F-15 with FC2 level modelling. Yes, the FC2 F-15 sucks compared to DCS aircraft, but it would fill in the gap and allow those who are so inclined to do air to air till a DCS module that features air to air is released. You could also add a DLC Su-27 or MiG-29s. I mean, why not? Is it really that hard to put something like that together? And it's more money for ED!

[sobek]

why not?

 

Because DCS!=FC2, different franchise, different standards, different everything.

 

Is it really that hard to put something like that together?

 

That is totally beside the point. Part of the reason to split DCS completely off of FC was because FC is owned by UBI. Doesn't make sense to enter the realm of legal bull**** again by incorporating a FC element into DCS.

[ilikepie]

it could feel a bit "patch work quiltish" things all cobbled together, but it could satisfy people with A2A hankerings.

 

 

As a suggestion for ED, maybe you shouldn't release FC2 compatability patch, but a much better option: downloadable content. For those owning DCS: A-10 or a compatable DCS: BS, you can pay like $5 and download a flyable F-15 with FC2 level modelling. Yes, the FC2 F-15 sucks compared to DCS aircraft, but it would fill in the gap and allow those who are so inclined to do air to air till a DCS module that features air to air is released. You could also add a DLC Su-27 or MiG-29s. I mean, why not? Is it really that hard to put something like that together? And it's more money for ED!

[Oscar]

ED needs to build a firewall between FC2 and the DCS series - soon! FC2 must end from a software design/support point of view. It makes no sense to try and continue to maintian backwards compatibility between the two product lines. I know that's going to disappoint a lot of people out there, but thats the facts. IMHO ED should not have issued the FC2/BS patch. It should have been a clean break.

 

What I would like to see is an independant, dedicated, DCS server component/module that each of the DCS client modules (BS, WH, etc.) could 'plug into' for multiplayer as they are created. What you see as an AI aircraft today, would/could be a human-flyable tomorrow. Users buy the new DCS client (aircraft) and a patch is issued for the dedicated server to recognize the new DCS module in a multiplayer environment. Designed right, this would eliminate the need to backwardly patch past DCS clients for compatibility - only server admins would need to load a patch.

 

Of course, this is just my opinion, but it seems a smart approach to me.