A10 & FC2 Compatibility

[59th_Reaper]

Because of the absolutely deliciously evil little temper-tantrums thrown at regular intervals by us, the Community, for years and years complaining, moaning and crying about aspects that were wrong/needed fixing in LockOn 1.12.

 

Many a fellow forum-member were lost in the battles! Where were you when these cat-fights laid waste to the forums?

 

 

So, what you are said: FC2 is a repaired FC1. If is true, why not a simply 1.13 patch only and why compatible with BS? And why is a payment product? It's only a repaired version, you said...

[EtherealN]

So, what you are said: FC2 is a repaired FC1. If is true, why not a simply 1.13 patch only and why compatible with BS? And why is a payment product? It's only a repaired version, you said...

 

FC2 is FC1 ported over to what was at the time the latest-generation TFCSE, plus a completely new sound engine, and a lot of gameplay tweaks. This is way more than a single patch - think of it like re-doing the original Quake, but with the Quake3 engine. Why not just patch that?

 

As for why it costs money?

Because making software costs money. A lot of money.

 

Let's say (I don't know the actual numbers, this is just for illustration) that there was an average of 20 people working on FC2 for 6 months, and each individual engineer costs an average of 3000 dollars a month. That's 360 000 dollars in just salaries. Then we add overhead, facilities, hardware, any licenses that are required, opportunity cost due to the time and delays in other products etcetera and things keep rising.

 

Basically, the options were like this: make a port over to the newer TFCSE and charge money for the product, or do nothing. That's called reality - the finance department always has the final word.

[159th_Viper]

So, what you are said: FC2 is a repaired FC1. If is true, why not a simply 1.13 patch only and why compatible with BS? And why is a payment product? It's only a repaired version, you said...

 

So LockOn 1.0 is a 'repaired' Flanker 1.5. And LockOn 1.12a/b is a 'repaired' LockOn 1.0. And yet you paid for those. Why so?

[59th_Reaper]

This is way more than a single patch - think of it like re-doing the original Quake, but with the Quake3 engine. Why not just patch that?

 

I fully understand that, but i don't know what is the concept. If you made this (porting FC1 into FC2(with DCS module)), why do you leave this line at now? If the DCS is a brand new engine (of course not), why don't you making new features really like engine smoke, various photorealistic clouds, dynamic weather, realistic sounds, multicrew planes,etc.? I see only a product with slightly upgraded Lock On graphics and 1-1 nice detailed (AFM, cockpit) plane.

Edited August 26, 2010 by 59th_Reaper

[Sticky]

Seen that FC2 basically has the same file structure as DCS:Blackshark I don't see any updating problem.

 

If you see FC2 as a module, the "only" thing ED needs to do is replace (patch) changed files in every module to keep compatibility up.

 

Sorry Frazer but you need to hear this, I apologize if this is too harsh: Ive been reading this and similar forums since the Flanker 2.0 days and that is one of the dumbest things ive read in all these years (im not counting all the nonsense ive read ofc, since you are actually trying to be serious). You cant honestly make assumptions about programming software based on the file structure? What happened in your head when you made that assumption? Seriously..

 

Then again, I don't see too much trouble to update FC2. If DCS Blackshark needs to be compatible with DCS A10, it is not too hard to update FC2 aswell seen the file structure.

 

OMG!! Again?? :cry:

[brydling]

I think it's awesome with a community where we have so many experts that knows everything about the software without ever having seen a single line of source code! If all software projects had people like you guys, then all software problems in the world would be gone. How cool is that!? :megalol:

 

Seriously now, don't ever say what can and what can't be easily done again. You are insulting the team and embarrasing yourselves.

[59th_Reaper]

Dear Viper (and the ED testers, lol)!

 

When you detect the bug in your testing product, then will be a real tester... Until then you say clever things, but they will be disbelieving.

 

Only one example (of numerous): The cockpit deck moving (open-close) sound is same as the cockpit sound. It was detected within 5 secs of the first run... Nice testing!:)

 

But no offense and this is offtopic at here...

 

Cheers

Edited August 26, 2010 by 59th_Reaper

[Sticky]

I think it's awesome with a community where we have so many experts that knows everything about the software without ever having seen a single line of source code! If all software projects had people like you guys, then all software problems in the world would be gone. How cool is that!? :megalol:

 

Seriously now, don't ever say what can and what can't be easily done again. You are insulting the team and embarrasing yourselves.

 

Amen to that!

 

TACK!

[Frazer]

Future will tell us who is right. Calling other forum members dumb for their way of thinking is ridiculous in my opinion.

 

Sorry Frazer but you need to hear this, I apologize if this is too harsh: Ive been reading this and similar forums since the Flanker 2.0 days and that is one of the dumbest things ive read in all these years (im not counting all the nonsense ive read ofc, since you are actually trying to be serious). You cant honestly make assumptions about programming software based on the file structure? What happened in your head when you made that assumption? Seriously..

 

 

 

OMG!! Again?? :cry:

[159th_Viper]

 

But no offense and this is offtopic at here...

 

Then why post it at all? The only inference that can be drawn is that said post made with the express intention of provoking a negative response, in which case offence is indeed taken, notwithstanding your 'insincere' attempt at clouding the issue.

 

Alas, I digress.....For the record, I was not involved in FC1.12b/FC2/BS testing ;)

[Sticky]

Future will tell us who is right.

 

No it wont, whether they patch FC2 or not has nothing to do with file structure, so the future wont tell us who is right.

 

Calling other forum members dumb for their way of thinking is ridiculous in my opinion.

 

Im sorry about that, I wasnt trying to call you dumb. I apologize anyway, it could have been interpreted that way. But I meant what I did write.

[EtherealN]

I fully understand that, but i don't know what is the concept. If you made this (porting FC1 into FC2(with DCS module)), why do you leave this line at now? If the DCS is a brand new engine (of course not), why don't you making new features really like engine smoke, various photorealistic clouds, dynamic weather, realistic sounds, multicrew planes,etc.? I see only a product with slightly upgraded Lock On graphics and 1-1 nice detailed (AFM, cockpit) plane.

 

I really do not understand what is so difficult in understanding here.

 

FC2 was developed because users requested it, and it was judged that it was possible to recoup the investment. It turned out to be a bigger job than expected, so price was increased. That pretty much covers why ED developed FC2. The community wanted it.

 

As for why it might be "left" now, this is also fairly simple: ED is in the study simulator business now - that is the type of product being actively pursued since this is where there are synergies between military and consumer market. The LockOn brand of products is light simulators. That said, we do not know for sure if FC2 will end up losing compatibility - that decision will most likely be made after the release of DCS:A-10C Warthog. Until then we can only talk about probabilities.

 

Also, you clearly do not quite understand what an "engine" is. There are many engines involved here: simulation engine, graphics engine, sound engine, etcetera etcetera. The only "brand new" one was the sound engine, the others were updated to newest version.

 

As for why there isn't anything like "engine smoke, various photorealistic clouds, dynamic weather, realistic sounds, multicrew planes"... Well, first of all you might want to look at the screenshots of the A10C, and perhaps peruse the note that the graphics engine is being updated to Dx11. But you need to have a perspective on how much work is involved in each of those things.

 

Also, "realistic sounds"... You ended up not noticing the new sound engine then? First sound engine with proper simulation of mach cone, low-pass attenuation etcetera? So that specific thing has already been fixed. As for clouds - again, have a look at the DCS:A-10C screenshots.

 

Basically, if all of that were to have been developed for FC2, then development of the product would have taken 2-3 years, and there might not have been a large enough market for it to cover the development cost and ED would have died. One of the most important aspects of software development is to have enough controls in place to avoid what is called "featuritis", which is when there are constantly new features being added to the point where the product is never completed, the studio runs out of money, and the developers are out of a job. (Google for "Duke Nukem Forever".) That's the reality part.

 

Trust me, ED wants to do all of those things you talked about, but ED has to do them in a way that is financially viable.

Edited August 26, 2010 by EtherealN

[Grimes]

FC2 is FC1 ported over to what was at the time the latest-generation TFCSE, plus a completely new sound engine, and a lot of gameplay tweaks. This is way more than a single patch - think of it like re-doing the original Quake, but with the Quake3 engine. Why not just patch that?

 

And if you get John Carmack to do the programming everything will be done in about 3 months and it will run on an iphone better than it does now on an Intel i7. :megalol:

 

The questions posed in this thread do bring up interesting discussions. Part of the questioning is based around the rational that between the 3 games massive similarities exist. Even without FC2 and BS online compatibility it would be easy to think that both games are heavily related. The only difference between the products are the flyable aircraft themselves and what you can do with them. Eventually the editor, AI, and other facets will evolve beyond that of what is currently in FC2/BS compatibility. Sadly this will be done bit by bit, and unless a feature receives a major overhaul in a game it will take a long time before we can stack FC2 up against DCS and notice whats really different.

 

I'm honestly on the fence about the FC2/BS compatibility. Sure its great right now, and its certain a new and fun experience. But by doing so it is SUCH a tease. Now we have hopes that maybe future DCS games will become compatible with it also. Or maybe the upgrades for those games might trickle down eventually to FC2. The point is now we have this idea that DCS and FC2 are compatible. The only question now is whether they are going to try and break us of this thought or continue to feed it.

 

Im starting to wonder why they just didn't call Flaming Cliffs 2 "Digital Combat Simulator: Variety Pack" or "DCS: Simple Aircraft Edition" instead.

[ArphytwoCma]

LO is a light sim,while DCS is a study sim.This is the most important difference.

[GGTharos]

Good job on being offensive, while not realizing that for every bug missed, we found 10. We have the bug tracking database to prove it.

 

I suggest that you do not continue upon this course of argument.

 

Dear Viper (and the ED testers, lol)!

 

When you detect the bug in your testing product, then will be a real tester... Until then you say clever things, but they will be disbelieving.

 

Only one example (of numerous): The cockpit deck moving (open-close) sound is same as the cockpit sound. It was detected within 5 secs of the first run... Nice testing!:)

 

But no offense and this is offtopic at here...

 

Cheers

[GGTharos]

Here's plain and simple, vague explanation of why it would be difficult to make FC2 compatible with A-10C:

 

At minimum, the SFM aircraft are no longer equipped to interact with the A-10C world.

[Scudslaker]

thx GGTharos, but i m really impressed,..to be honest, i can t see any fact that didn t allows the modules to communicate to each other,

 

it s the network code that needed to be updated.. if one module has dx 11 and the other not and they can tell where the single pilot is and the other module can draw this, even if the map is more detailed,..why shouldn t it work?

 

it s an option to make sfm planes flyable for humanplayer with another module..

 

i don t like the way of arguments in this thread. we ask for possible reasons why it shouldn t work and request to make it possible..what is dumb on that?

 

we all are passionists in flying the ED products...pls keep seriously arguments..or tell me why i m wrong, and even Frazer should be wrong if he says the file structure is comparable between DCS and FC2.

 

 

sincerely

 

Scud

[GGTharos]

I just gave you one above ;)

 

thx GGTharos, but i m really impressed,..to be honest, i can t see any fact that didn t allows the modules to communicate to each other,

[NRG-Vampire]

Seen the fact that ED is saying "unlikely" and so, not ruling it out, I guess it is more dependant on marketing. Updating costs money, at some point they will have to bail FC2.

 

Then again, I don't see too much trouble to update FC2. If DCS Blackshark needs to be compatible with DCS A10, it is not too hard to update FC2 aswell seen the file structure.

 

We will see. We can all just guess, I think ED themselves don't even know it yet (referring to "unlikely").

 

After all, it's all about money.

 

Yep, im talking about the same:

 

I would not believe in the fact that there will be a too big difference between DCSBS and DCSW, while FC2+DCSBS compatibility is solved.

 

This compatibility thing must be a summer joke from ED to wake up a bit this sleeping forum :smartass:

 

The compatibility (FC2+DCSBS+DCSW) will not be a problem for the manufacturer, but there will be other opportunities too :smilewink:

 

After all, it's all about decision of ED. :doh:

[59th_Reaper]

As for why there isn't anything like "engine smoke, various photorealistic clouds, dynamic weather, realistic sounds, multicrew planes"... Well, first of all you might want to look at the screenshots of the A10C, and perhaps peruse the note that the graphics engine is being updated to Dx11. But you need to have a perspective on how much work is involved in each of those things.

 

Also, "realistic sounds"... You ended up not noticing the new sound engine then? First sound engine with proper simulation of mach cone, low-pass attenuation etcetera? So that specific thing has already been fixed. As for clouds - again, have a look at the DCS:A-10C screenshots.

 

Thank you for your answer, but some things. I saw the A-10 screenshots and i know how many work to do this. Nice graphics but the DX11 have more features than this. Example FSX... I know this unfair contrasting, because the Microsoft is a very different company (the biggest) than the ED. And the FSX is not perfect product neither.

 

Realistic sounds: I think you need to go a military airbase and pls listen the sounds (especially the plane moving, afterburners, flybys etc.). And this new engine (in DCS/FC2) have got so many bugs...

 

Clouds: I think the clouds in the DCS:A-10C are really pretty than the FC's clouds, but henceforward are "MS paint style"... And dynamic/different weather is still not in the game. You flying in same weather everywhere...

 

Check this: http://www.realenvironmentxtreme.com/gallery.html

 

I don't want blame the ED, but it's my and some people's opinion...

Edited August 26, 2010 by 59th_Reaper

[Scudslaker]

Here's plain and simple, vague explanation of why it would be difficult to make FC2 compatible with A-10C:

 

At minimum, the SFM aircraft are no longer equipped to interact with the A-10C world.

 

 

no concrete argument for me, cause i can t see a reason to do not allow interactions of SFM!)

 

thx anyway,..for me it seems useless to discuss it further..we all have to wait for the resulting product..

[GGTharos]

.. how about the fact that you cannot switch radio frequencies inside your SFM cockpit?

 

no concrete argument for me, cause i can t see a reason to do not allow interactions of SFM!)

 

thx anyway,..for me it seems useless to discuss it further..we all have to wait for the resulting product..

[element1108]

Thank you for your answer, but some things. I saw the A-10 screenshots and i know how many work to do this. Nice graphics but the DX11 have more features than this. Example FSX... I know this unfair contrasting, because the Microsoft is a very different company (the biggest) than the ED. And the FSX is not perfect product neither.

 

Realistic sounds: I think you need to go a military airbase and pls listen the sounds (especially the plane moving, afterburners, flybys etc.). And this new engine (in DCS/FC2) have got so many bugs...

 

Clouds: I think the clouds in the DCS:A-10C are really pretty than the FC's clouds, but henceforward are "MS paint style"... And dynamic/different weather is still not in the game. You flying in same weather everywhere...

 

Check this: http://www.realenvironmentxtreme.com/gallery.html

 

I don't want blame the ED, but it's my and some people's opinion...

 

Jeezuz what the hell man? Go to an airbase and listen to the sounds?? What is your problem besides trying to start a fight. Your posts on this matter are without any respect at all and seem to lack a general understanding of the complexity of the issue. The sound engine is not perfect, ED knows this, they're bright individuals. To insult the testers like you did in an earlier post and to continue with this is just lame. The science of sound is VERY EFFING complicated, so yeah we know what an airbase sounds like, but I've never seen the sounds of an airbase replicated inside a game.

 

As far as REX, please...weather in a combat sim is interesting but it's by no means the crowning achievment. If you had NO weather in FSX...you would loose a good portion of what makes it interesting. There are no targets in FSX, no combat mission objectives in FSX. This thread really needs to stop comparing FSX to BS or LOCKON. They were built completely different from the ground up.

 

These debates are fun when the logic is present and it's a battle of the witts. Oversimplicfications and calling out the flaws in a very complicated simulation isn't debating.

 

Logic doesn't need defending, do a little research or grow your understanding on certain things before posting, because the mods and testers are defending common sense and actuality while some are arguing fiction and bull s*it.

Edited August 26, 2010 by element1108

[59th_Reaper]

Jeezuz what the hell man? Go to an airbase and listen to the sounds?? What is your problem besides trying to start a fight. Your posts on this matter are without any respect at all and seem to lack a general understanding of the complexity of the issue. The sound engine is not perfect, ED knows this, they're bright individuals. To insult the testers like you did in an earlier post and to continue with this is just lame. The science of sound is VERY EFFING complicated, so yeah we know what an airbase sounds like, but I've never seen the sounds of an airbase replicated inside a game.

 

As far as REX, please...weather in a combat sim is interesting but it's by no means the crowning achievment. If you had NO weather in FSX...you would loose a good portion of what makes it interesting. There are no targets in FSX, no combat mission objectives in FSX. This thread really needs to stop comparing FSX to BS or LOCKON. They were built completely different from the ground up.

 

These debates are fun when the logic is present and it's a battle of the witts. Oversimplicfications and calling out the flaws in a very complicated simulation isn't debating.

 

Logic doesn't need defending, do a little research or grow your understanding on certain things before posting, because the mods and testers are defending common sense and actuality while some are arguing fiction and bull s*it.

 

 

Man, man! You don't understand nothing. This is a simulator and we're in 2010. If we're following your train of thought the Chuck Yeager Combat's graphic is enough for a battle sim... Ha-ha. I don't like the FSX, but some graphic features is very good in that sim. Else. If the ED can't make realistic sounds (YOU SAID THIS, NOT ME), why they call their sound engine "Realistic"? And please select your words, because i flew with sims then, when you're a simply mind of your parent's head...

Edited August 26, 2010 by 59th_Reaper

[muamshai]

No decisions have been made regarding this question. Please don't put words into our mouths as misinformation moves quickly and easily over the net.

 

No need to get a degree in rocket science to understand this voice in post #2 in this thread. ED might want to direct its resources to A-10 now.