Now What?

[GGTharos]

It is all a matter of available time, but given that the main plan of DCS is to have everything compatible, I think they will ride that wagon until the wheels fall off.

 

So we all seem to agree on one point, as long as DCS moduli are compatible to each other all is fine.

 

Some official anoucments sounded rather like "we hope they will be compatible" and not like "it is part of our development plan, to have a compatible set of DCS a/c", what catched my concerns. ;)

[159th_Viper]

.....make-your-eyes-bleed-to-death flake-on four stuff.....

 

:megalol:

 

No disrespect intended but by Gawd that brought tears to my eyes!

[Steel Jaw]

Bah!

 

No fair: you have mod status here.

 

:D

 

(Falcon 4 is a mess, in any version, no Falconeer will deny that.)

[Cali]

People make what they want to do on a server. Most servers have comms, you can join it and make a plan with other people. But, that's the thing most people don't join comms. Typing while flying isn't good...cause it can get you killed and it's distracting. No matter how how DCS is, people are gonna join and do the same thing when DCS fighters come out.....airquake.....:D

[Fimble]

(Falcon 4 is a mess, in any version, no Falconeer will deny that.)

 

I wouldn't say it's a mess. FreeFalcon5 is alive and well. Some Win7 64bit + Nvidia guys were suffering for a little bit but Nvidia's new beta drivers seem to have resolved it for them. Me, I've never had a problem with her. Smooth, pretty and most importantly, endless replay value thanks to the campaign(s).

 

Buggy for some to be sure, but certainly not a mess. Truth be told I still pop into OpenFalcon on occasion and run a mission too. Too bad development is dead for that flavor.

 

I figure I'll need a week or so to effectively fly this gorgeous whirly bird, by then I'll have found out if I can enjoy a simulator with scripted missions after having been spoiled so rotten for so long in Falcon with it's living, dynamic campaigns. I truly hope I am still having a blast after a month, because I really like the DCS attention to fidelity! :pilotfly:

 

Now if they'd just develop a DC I'd pre order the next 10 installments today then start naming babies after them ;)

 

In the meantime, there's no law against flying both!

[213]

i hope the ka50 gets remastered with normal mapping support

[ZQuickSilverZ]

I think keycat has a good point (+1 Keycat). FC2 really is a good introduction or alternative for people that are new to flight sims (I would think more experienced people would move on to DCS) or do not have the time or want to learn them. It is also a good stepping stone to the DCS series. I mean honestly you can not expect someone to make an easy transition from say Call of Duty 4 (FPS's seem to be the main audience these days) to something like DCS and not suffer a bit of intimidation from the complexity. We are a different crowd then someone fresh to flight sims (our games ARE NOT pick up and play). We have kind of "grown up" with them. Imagine someone that has never played a flight sim, knows nothing about aircraft, buying a DCS title and then seeing the 600 page instruction manual (for ONE aircraft).

Edited October 15, 2010 by ZQuickSilverZ

[104th_Crunch]

I think keycat has a good point (+1 Keycat). FC2 really is a good introduction or alternative for people that are new to flight sims (I would think more experienced people would move on to DCS) or do not have the time or want to learn them. It is also a good stepping stone to the DCS series. I mean honestly you can not expect someone to make an easy transition from say Call of Duty 4 (FPS's seem to be the main audience these days) to something like DCS and not suffer a bit of intimidation from the complexity. We are a different crowd then someone fresh to flight sims (our games ARE NOT pick up and play). We have kind of "grown up" with them. Imagine someone that has never played a flight sim, knows nothing about aircraft, buying a DCS title and then seeing the 600 page instruction manual (for ONE aircraft).

 

Just play DCS in game mode.

[element1108]

Now we wait for final a10 release then wait for dcs bs comparability and the next module announcement. Doesn't make sense to try to keep lomac in the loop, it has a lot of planes and one helo, that should suffice. For the time and headache it will be to retrofit not only black shark, but lomac into dcs standards will not be easy and will delay the future of dcs. Be satisfied with bs and lomac upgrade, it will always be there.

 

A10 is complicated so I would say most are enjoying the steep learning curve, once familiar bs will pick up again no doubt. There are dedicated rotor heads among us.

[Steel Jaw]

ED people are already suggesting (read between the lines NOT GONNA HAPPEN) that the FC2/LOMAC code is too old to be integrated with the DCS code.

 

I would oppose such a move in any case as it could cause harm and stabilty issues to the DCS line IMHO.

 

Besdies which, I see no benefit in mixing a liteweight sim with a heavyweight one.

[KeyCat]

Be satisfied with bs and lomac upgrade, it will always be there.

 

True, but both have some serious issues (introduced by latest patches) that needs fixing regardless.

 

Besdies which, I see no benefit in mixing a liteweight sim with a heavyweight one.

 

You may not but others will, to each his own I guess ;)

 

I can only speak for myself and my main interest is larger scale multiplayer with focus on Combined Arms scenarios where various airframes do what they do best and everyone (on same side) work as one large team towards a common goal (for example Ka-50's, Su-25's and Su-27's is a good mixture IMO).

 

With current pace it will be a long wait (~6+ years) before we have a equal amount and varity of planes in DCS - if ever....

 

Don't get me wrong, I really like the DCS-series (especially DCS:BS and hopefully a DCS:AH-64 somewhere down the road) and all the challenge learning the systems etc. but I could care less if my wingmen flies a "less" challenging plane with less buttons to press in a Combined Arms scenario, my goal is to have a good time with friends where teamwork is the main mantra.

 

Anyway, it's up to ED what they decide to do, just giving my 0.20 SEK.

 

Cheers,

 

/KC

Edited October 15, 2010 by KeyCat

[159th_Viper]

With the A10A already present and accounted for in LockOn, what rational argument can be presented for integration of the A10C?

[Steel Jaw]

I could care less if my wingmen flies a "less" challenging plane with less buttons to press in a Combined Arms scenario

 

I do care and here is why from I have already seen on the FC2 servers when a DCS Ka50 flies.

 

The simplistic airframes in FC2 take no time to start and get airborne so there is little incentive to fight with realistic tactics and survive. Just air quake the other side, rinse, rearm, repeat. Who cares if yo get shot down?

 

So imagine flying against an OPFOR like that.

 

No thank you.

[KeyCat]

I understand your point Mower and when it comes to TvsT it's pro's and con's in my opinion. Some of the problems can be minimized by mission design (like 104th did on their nice pub server).

 

Among the pro's from my POV is that FC 2.0 + DCS can mix less experienced pilots with more experienced and allows for more people (i.e larger scenarios) to take part in the fun on their own terms.

 

I know for a fact that lots of people just can't justify the time needed to learn a hardcore sim due to their RL obligations (family, work etc.) but like to fly with others now and then anyway.

 

@159_Viper: I have to see if I can give a good argument when I sober up a bit but shooting from the hip I say - what I said above + future DCS-modules :)

 

/KC

Edited October 15, 2010 by KeyCat

[Steel Jaw]

With the A10A already present and accounted for in LockOn, what rational argument can be presented for integration of the A10C?

 

Excellent...

 

EXCELLENT...

 

EXCELLENT

Point.

 

Case closed.

[Steel Jaw]

I know for a fact that lots of people just can't justify the time needed to learn a hardcore sim due to their RL obligations (family, work etc.) but like to fly now and then anyway.

 

No doubt. I am in that very same boat.

 

But for them there is FC2.

[KeyCat]

Case closed.

 

Huuh? Maybe you are just pulling our legs... but isn't this the right place to discuss DCS-related things and give input to the dev's?

 

As already pointed out... in the end it's ED's own choice to decide what to do but reading different opinions (as long as they stay civil) from various people/groups/squads may actually help them in the long run.

 

No doubt. I am in that very same boat.

 

But for them there is FC2.

 

Seems you are missing my POV ;)

 

/KC

Edited October 15, 2010 by KeyCat

[Steel Jaw]

I see your point KeyCat.

 

But the questions remains: with an A10A in FC2 already, why the need to force an unnatural intergration (from a coding POV) with DCS?

[Steel Jaw]

Huuh? Maybe you are just pulling our legs... but isn't this the right place to discuss DCS-related things and give input to the dev's?

 

No matter: smart people don't listen to me anyhow. Ask around. :D

[Cali]

I do care and here is why from I have already seen on the FC2 servers when a DCS Ka50 flies.

 

The simplistic airframes in FC2 take no time to start and get airborne so there is little incentive to fight with realistic tactics and survive. Just air quake the other side, rinse, rearm, repeat. Who cares if yo get shot down?

 

So imagine flying against an OPFOR like that.

 

No thank you.

 

Mower, do you think some people are going to change. Do you think that they are going to magically think, hey I'm not gonna go after the easy pray (Ka-50, A-10 and etc..) They aren't, some people are gonna do the same thing they do now. There are a lot of us that wish people would fly more realistically, but that is never going to happen. Some people don't have the time. And I bet there are a lot of people that use the quick start-up in the Ka-50, instead of going through the whole process. People don't have the time, they want action, that's one reason we FPS are popular.

[Steel Jaw]

There are a lot of us that wish people would fly more realistically, but that is never going to happen.

 

That's why I fly with a VFW. And we are taking on DCS A10C.

 

But I do not want to see DCS porked, or even the RISK of that happening, to force an unholy intregration of a hardcore sim with a casual one.

 

There are already enough lite weight games/"sims" around to appease the FPS crowd.

[Steel Jaw]

BTW it is a fact that I am a loud mouthed arse. :D

[GGTharos]

I magically think that I should be dropping anything that flies and doesn't squawk the correct IFF signal, especially if it looks like it's going to go say hello to my ground forces.

 

Something about the F-15 'being made to do that' or something ... those who fly the targets can continue whining about how it isn't fair. I'm sure the ground troops don't feel it's fair, either :D

 

Mower, do you think some people are going to change. Do you think that they are going to magically think, hey I'm not gonna go after the easy pray (Ka-50, A-10 and etc..) They aren't, some people are gonna do the same thing they do now. There are a lot of us that wish people would fly more realistically, but that is never going to happen. Some people don't have the time. And I bet there are a lot of people that use the quick start-up in the Ka-50, instead of going through the whole process. People don't have the time, they want action, that's one reason we FPS are popular.

[Cali]

I magically think that I should be dropping anything that flies and doesn't squawk the correct IFF signal, especially if it looks like it's going to go say hello to my ground forces.

 

Something about the F-15 'being made to do that' or something ... those who fly the targets can continue whining about how it isn't fair. I'm sure the ground troops don't feel it's fair, either :D

 

I agree with you on this one, I was just replying to mower. I don't care what I kill, if it's not on my side...it's dead.

 

 

@Mower, Like I said..the same thing is going to happen when more jets in DCS come out. The only way to fight this is fly with a squad, not in multiplayer servers.

[element1108]

True, but both have some serious issues (introduced by latest patches) that needs fixing regardless.

 

 

/KC

 

 

But there will always be the need for patches you see. Especially I they keep upgrading old code, new code breaks old code rules and you require patches. Those take time, cost money and are in an infiniteloop. I'd rather they concentrate on future elements. I am an bid player of lomac and bs, but at some point a line must be drawn so we can move forward.

 

If they patch and continue to fix, bonus, but it's a little radical to ask for all series to be compatible (lockon and dcs). Land the a10a in lomac and the c in dcs and that's enough reason right there to end dev on lomac. Hhehe. Maverick is another good example.

 

Legal issues as well with ubi, I'd refer the work of a small indy company vs a mega corporation.

 

That's my two cents anyway :)