Are there plans to expand the map?

[dooom]

Just curious as to why the AO is limited to the eastern shore of the sea... I can't find any indication the map will expand for either BS or FC2 but yet when i scroll out in game there sure is plenty of shoreline to explore and expand upon?

 

any scuttlebutt out there on the issue??

[Eddie]

The terrain are will be expanded to the east to include all of Georgia and more of Russia in DCS:A-10C. The main issue with having larger areas of terrain, is having the hardware to cope with it as well as limitations of the simulation engine.

[bumfire]

In dcs A10, the map is expanded, so I think once DCS A10 is released and when they have time to make a patch for blackshark, they will bring the map upto DCS A10 standards.

 

As far as I know, the new map stretches further into Georgia, I dont know if it goes further into Russia aswell ? but it definetly goes alot further into Georgia as it has already been stated as doing so.

 

EDIT:

 

Oh Snap, Eddie beat me to it by um, a second ?

[dooom]

so what about fc2 - if BS goes up to the a10 standard - will all of the integration we enjoy online go bye bye?

[Panzertard]

ED have to tell you about this integration, the rest of us doesn't know yet.

[Eddie]

will all of the integration we enjoy online go bye bye?

 

At the moment that simply isn't known. The 'plan' is to patch Black Shark to make in compatible with A-10C online, including the engine updates. My personal belief is that FC2 will not be updated further, partly due to copyright issues and partly because FC2 simply isn't DCS and doesn't fit with it.

[CAT_101st]

I will miss the air cover from FC2 but do agree that it is not of the same standared and needs to go.

[104th_Crunch]

I will miss the air cover from FC2 but do agree that it is not of the same standared and needs to go.

 

Well, hopefully to many, the plan goes so that when/if ED stop working on FC2, it frees up their time so they can move ahead with maybe a fighter for DCS. A worthy trade off if you don't have resources to do both. I am sure DCS:Ka-50 is easier to bring to DCS:A-10C level than FC2 is. I don't personally want to fly the jets in FC2 for the rest of my sim life :) I look forward to a possible fast mover next after A-10. Yes, I am spamming the forums way too much with this opinion, sorry:poster_spam:

[ZQuickSilverZ]

FC 2 needs to stay until they get at least one fast mover. Honestly I feel like they need about 6 DCS titles to get rid of FC 2. I don't want to go from a full, complimentry library to two aircraft.

[EtherealN]

Guys, remember that FC2 compatibility with DCS:BS was a bonus.

[Eddie]

FC 2 needs to stay until they get at least one fast mover. Honestly I feel like they need about 6 DCS titles to get rid of FC 2. I don't want to go from a full, complimentry library to two aircraft.

 

Why? One aircraft is enough when simulated to the level of detail in DCS, it'll take months or even years to master one aircraft.

[ZQuickSilverZ]

Why? Because aircraft are designed for specific functions. The two aircraft offered do not cover all aspects of air combat. By removing fast movers from the sim they could remove an important part of modern air combat and limit future combat scenarios. If you feel that way then I guess we don't need the A10 either we can all just play Blackshark for a couple more years. You know because its so highly detailed. We just need one aircraft right? Plus there is the issue of customers who are only interested in fast mover combat that may be lost because they were left out in the cold. You have not changed my opinion one bit. FC2 should stay.... for now.

[26-J39]

Why Why? You shouldn't look a gift horse in the mouth.. ED is moving forward, FC has too many ties to Ubisoft.. Where were we all before the FC2/BS patch? It was a bonus afterall..

[Boberro]

Guys, remember that FC2 compatibility with DCS:BS was a bonus.

 

Not only bonus I think. Merging FC and BS moved people who thought BS environment was to sterile to fly only chopper closer to the product = more sales. :)

Edited August 23, 2010 by Boberro

[Eddie]

Why? Because aircraft are designed for specific functions. The two aircraft offered do not cover all aspects of air combat. By removing fast movers from the sim they could remove an important part of modern air combat and limit future combat scenarios. If you feel that way then I guess we don't need the A10 either we can all just play Blackshark for a couple more years. You know because its so highly detailed. We just need one aircraft right? Plus there is the issue of customers who are only interested in fast mover combat that may be lost because they were left out in the cold. You have not changed my opinion one bit. FC2 should stay.... for now.

 

While you make good points, the problem is that the aircraft in FC2 do not even come close to the level of detail and realism of aircraft in DCS and imho simply don't fit. I mean how valuable is it to have a air superiority aircraft that is missing some of the systems it needs to effectively do it's job? As for removing aspects of air combat, they are still there just not human controlled.

 

As for the "fast mover" players, they have FC2, and based on my experience most wouldn't notice if there were no Ka-50s flying with them anymore. FC2 will still be there for those that enjoy playing such sims.

 

At the end of the day it comes down to this, what would you rather have ED do, spend another 6 months after A-10C is released and BS is patched up negotiating with Ubisoft to get permission to update lock-on again and then if they get permission do the necessary development or start work on the next DCS module? I know which one I'd choose. The longer ED have to keep supporting lock-on, the longer it's going to be before we do see DCS:Fighter.

Edited August 23, 2010 by Eddie

[ZQuickSilverZ]

Well there is this to think about also. If they don't make FC2 and DCS A-10C compatable thier going to divide thier player base up, at least for a while. Your going to have half that play DCS A10-C / DCS BS and half that play FC2 / DCS BS. I don't see what damage it would do (besides some time and I can wait) to keep DCS tied to FC until they at least get one fighter. By the way that avatar cracks me up. Those little stick figures banging on the paper are so funny.

[Frederf]

Guys, remember that FC2 compatibility with DCS:BS was a bonus.

 

Yeah but DCS:BS and DCS:A10 (WH?) compatibility is a given.

[Succellus]

Well FC have to go? Yes. FC + BS or WT won t make much diference anyway.

High jockey tend to fly higher and rarely come down as they know usually mud movers, got escort.

 

But i recognize that a boat rider multi role fast mover, whatever side, would be an awesome add.

 

OTOH, a nato side chopper would be taticaly more interesting scenario wise for MP, for SP a fast mover is more interesting.

 

As much as we need dedication or month to master a ride, people tend overtime to ride only what they like, hard or not. So the more we have the merrier it is.

But it may become a nightmare for misison creators to integrate a lot of diferent planes.

 

I do not tire of planes, but i do tire of scenário. As much as i like eastern europe, some south americanish / African theater would be awesome.

 

Brazil just acquired MiL mi 35, Venezuela got MK30, and Hugo Chavez "de cadeia" (jail key) going nuts, near some economical total failure, along with Cuba and bolivia for his Bolivariana Revolution would give an awesome scenario, the 4th Fleet could easely come in as a villain or savior, and would deploy a lot in the misions possibilities.

Chile, Bolivia, Brazil, colombia and venezuela, Argentina etc have plenty of armaments that fits right in the 70 to the early 90.

[ZQuickSilverZ]

Well FC have to go? Yes. FC + BS or WT won t make much diference anyway.

High jockey tend to fly higher and rarely come down as they know usually mud movers, got escort.

 

Succellus I don't know what server your playing on but this has not been my experience at all. Fast movers attack any target of opportunity. Also Boberro is right. They can call it a bonus all they want but the truth is they needed the integration to help the DCS series get its name out and to get those servers populated. I don't think FC should be compatible forever. But DCS definately needs a larger library of aircraft first.

[Succellus]

Succellus I don't know what server your playing on but this has not been my experience at all. Fast movers attack any target of opportunity. Also Boberro is right. They can call it a bonus all they want but the truth is they needed the integration to help the DCS series get its name out and to get those servers populated. I don't think FC should be compatible forever. But DCS definately needs a larger library of aircraft first.

 

 

And anyone would get any target of oportunity anyway.

Your right.

I have a poor quality conexion, so i rarely play MP, never PVP.

But then there is another problem, what about the fact that LO/FC are absurdly easy to fly and manage, while DCS aren t that easy and won t be. It is an unfair advantage.

 

How much planes would you constantly fly with 5 BS complex vessels on the same game ? How many planes do you really fly in FC ?

 

There s is no need to get riddled anyway, the only thing that will happen is that that DCS A10 wont be FC compatible, but you already have a mudmover in FC. So its no big deal.

Edited August 24, 2010 by Succellus

[ZQuickSilverZ]

Succellus I'm not riddled just stating my opinion. This is a friendly debate and nothing more. I once read on a SimHQ forum that servers are where we go to do real time combat and forums are where we go to do turn based strategy. However I don't understand your logic about making statements about multiplayer when you stated that you never play PVP. If you don't play in a mixed aircraft combat enviroment I don't understand why you would communicate an opinion about it.

[Speed]

But then there is another problem, what about the fact that LO/FC are absurdly easy to fly and manage, while DCS aren t that easy and won t be. It is an unfair advantage.

 

I used to think so until I actually played FC2. What a joke! I lost interest after about two flights. I'd do much better if I had a fully modelled aircraft in my hands that has all the systems I NEED to get the job done.

 

As far as expanding the map goes, it needs to be done, BADLY. I was VERY happy when the expanded map for DCS A-10 was revealed, but it's still too small. Falcon 4 had much larger maps. Alot of people here apparently want to play an study sim like an arcade sim with super short flights ALL THE TIME. I get people complaining when they have to fly a measely 40km or more to get to targets in the missions I build. While, with the limited time people have there is definately a need for alot of short missions, I want the ability to fly LONG missions where I might even have to perform aerial refueling just to get back to base! There is no better satisfaction than flying a three or four hour mission and making back to base alive. Some of my fondest memories in Falcon 4 are times when we flew in the HUGE ODS theater on really long missions, such as the time we re-enacted Israel's 1981 strike on Saddam's reactor, or SCUD hunting in the southern Iraqi desert, and then having to wait in (a short) line at the tanker before getting the gas we needed to get home.

 

A huge theater is something DCS will lack even after A-10 is out. What exactly is the limit that keeps the ED team from expanding the map indefinately? I've read they even REMOVED a big chunk of the map, the Crimean pennens-penninsu- forget it, you know what I'm talking about. Why would they do that?

Edited August 24, 2010 by Speed

[Succellus]

Who knows ? Military / Political demands. ED is fully attached to military world, so he can t piss off anyone, no mater how stupid.

 

Maybe some government fear someone planning war strategy trought DCS map and mission building the same way terrorist trained 09/11 on Microsoft simulator.

 

Who knows. Havent Iran or Iraq tryed to do long range missiles on nintendo (whatever) chips ?

Edited August 24, 2010 by Succellus

[GGTharos]

Because the terrain engine for FC2/Ka-50 could not support the number of objects (buildings, etc) required to model both the crimea and georgia.

[Succellus]

Ow that hurts.

Because it means the theatres will always been small unless there s a change in the engine.

Will this change for DCS A10 ?