Is DCS independent of BS?

[HerrKaputt]

Hi folks,

 

I'd like to ask you something about the Digital Combat Simulator (DCS), and the Ka-50 and A-10 modules already out there. The DCS: Warthog manual says that several parts of the DCS were improved along with the introduction of another aircraft. Does this mean that owners of the Black Shark module who don't buy Warthog also get those improvements, or will they always be stuck with an outdated version of DCS?

 

BTW, sorry if this is a silly question. I don't own DCS: Black Shark so I can't test for myself.

 

Thanks in advance!

[159th_Viper]

From the F.A.Q.

 

 

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

 

A: We hope to be able to release a compatibility patch for DCS: Black Shark after release. This would give Black Shark all the features of A-10C, except the flyable A-10C.

[HerrKaputt]

Ah, my bad for not searching enough (actually funny that I went to deeper sources like the A-10 Manual instead of a more superficial source like a forum FAQ, but my fault nevertheless).

 

Thanks Viper! I'm a bit worried by the language "hope to be able", but it's probably the best they can do since it's a bad idea to make a full-on promise of the future.

[159th_Viper]

 

Thanks Viper! I'm a bit worried by the language "hope to be able", but it's probably the best they can do since it's a bad idea to make a full-on promise of the future.

 

No bother :)

 

And yeah - you're exactly right promises of the future. Even with the very best of intentions they sometimes have the tendency to breed trouble and strife amongst discontents.

[empeck]

I'm curious - why DCS titles are separate from each other? From the user POV it would be much better to be able to integrate them into single application, and add A-10C as next flyable to already available Ka-50. When more DCS modules will be available I think it will be very difficult to ED to retain online compatibility and patch previous titles that doesn't provide enough income.

[Henchman14]

Well, as I understand it, when the patch comes out, both aircraft will fly together in the same world. I wonder how Kh-25's work out on runways?

[EtherealN]

Well, what you are talking about would definitely, and 100%, lock ED into "patching previous titles", even though it does so through integrating them in the same application. Basically, programming and most especially program design is a messy business, and having too many things integrated in the same package can mean that tweaking one thing for one thing has unexpected effects in a completely different area, making the thing impossible to maintain.

 

As an example, let's imagine the A-10C and KA-50 were in the same product, and a bug is discovered where some things are tweaked in the A-10C FM - and suddenly the Ka-50's rotor tip stall behaviour gets broken, so fix that, and suddenly the A-10C doesn't stall correclty, so that gets fixed, and then the original problem strangely reappears - and ED has spent a couple programmers for a couple months and is back at square one.

 

Compare that to just fixing the original issue with minimal risk of cascading effects, and it might actually become easier to maintain compatibility since you only need to "fix" those things that are required for interoperability. For example, DCS:A-10C doesn't need to know how the Ka-50 player flight model works, and DCS:Shark doesn't need to know how the A-10C player FM works - they just need to be able to talk to each other and interpret data the same way. (As well as other things like having the same terrain and so on.)

 

The bigger you make something, the bigger the chances of very weird stuff causing you to not be able to tune the product right. Keep it in more bite-size chunks and your programmers and testers have a much easier job. :P

 

(Disclaimer: I'm no programmer, so there's tonnes of educated guessing above.)

[empeck]

Thanks for quick answer. I see your point. I just thought it would be good (for user) to keep one game ( ;) ) and integrate modules into one application.

 

I have faith in ED though, I think they know what are they doing ;)

[HerrKaputt]

Well, what you are talking about would definitely, and 100%, lock ED into "patching previous titles", even though it does so through integrating them in the same application. Basically, programming and most especially program design is a messy business, and having too many things integrated in the same package can mean that tweaking one thing for one thing has unexpected effects in a completely different area, making the thing impossible to maintain.

 

As an example, let's imagine the A-10C and KA-50 were in the same product, and a bug is discovered where some things are tweaked in the A-10C FM - and suddenly the Ka-50's rotor tip stall behaviour gets broken, so fix that, and suddenly the A-10C doesn't stall correclty, so that gets fixed, and then the original problem strangely reappears - and ED has spent a couple programmers for a couple months and is back at square one.

 

Compare that to just fixing the original issue with minimal risk of cascading effects, and it might actually become easier to maintain compatibility since you only need to "fix" those things that are required for interoperability. For example, DCS:A-10C doesn't need to know how the Ka-50 player flight model works, and DCS:Shark doesn't need to know how the A-10C player FM works - they just need to be able to talk to each other and interpret data the same way. (As well as other things like having the same terrain and so on.)

 

The bigger you make something, the bigger the chances of very weird stuff causing you to not be able to tune the product right. Keep it in more bite-size chunks and your programmers and testers have a much easier job. :P

 

(Disclaimer: I'm no programmer, so there's tonnes of educated guessing above.)

 

But I AM a programmer (for scientific research, not for games). You're not far from the truth ;) making modular programs is very useful in science, and I'd guess in games as well.

[empeck]

But I AM a programmer (for scientific research, not for games). You're not far from the truth ;) making modular programs is very useful in science, and I'd guess in games as well.

 

That's my point, I thought it would be good if the planes would be kind of module plugged into a world engine - like in RoF, il2, FSX, etc. I'm curious why ED took different path than other simulation developers.