Officially - Will A10 be Compatible with BS?

[EtherealN]

http://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/faq/

 

:music_whistling:

 

Sort of deprecated FAQ I'm afraid, a lot of things have changed since that FAQ was written.

[Bodo]

OK, just reading through after realising I should be a good boy n search!

 

Just to clarify though, I can host a game and a mate can join me on Black Shark or A10?

 

Ahh, I see, there were problems with ports but I presume it is working now.

Sorry, for throwing this off topic. I'll figure it out.

Edited February 16, 2011 by Bodo

[EtherealN]

No, you cannot do so now. A-10C would first have to get released, and then DCS:BS would have to be patched.

 

We are talking about the future, not the present. ;)

[El_Roto]

"Where the Future Begins Tomorrow"

[S77th-konkussion]

Leave FC in the past. They can do as they wish, obviously- but there's certainly no mixing those aircraft (modeling wise) and and DCS moving forward. It surprised me to see a hi fi aircraft like the BS joined with LOMAC era planes- but seems like it's time to move on. Looking ahead you don't want to have ultra real high workload mixed in with the equivalent of a point-n-shoot.. I don't see this as splitting anyone. We have a us based fighter coming, there will be more- likely from several nations. Plus- ED can't be hamstrung by previous legal & financial obligations (Ubi as an example) forever to keep an obsolete (in every way) title afloat. It has to reach a point of diminishing return at some stage...

Edited February 16, 2011 by S77th-konkussion

[Bodo]

Just got up to have a cig as I can't sleep tonight. Radio is keeping me up.

 

thanks EtherealN. Noted.

 

Fully agree withe the guy above me about FC aswell.

 

I do not think we should have to pay for a compatibility update, though.

[EtherealN]

I do not think we should have to pay for a compatibility update, though.

 

You won't. Who ever said anything about paying for compatibility? It'll either happen or it won't, and if it does it happens through a patch.

 

Again: FAQ. ;)

[evilnate]

Sort of deprecated FAQ I'm afraid, a lot of things have changed since that FAQ was written.

 

 

That's a bummer man! :glare: But since your an ED tester I imagine you have some insider information that would explain why the original DCS FAQ depreciated, or why it would be too difficult for ED to allow the BS to fly the same virtual skys.

 

I think alot of people had big hopes that the original intent of the DCS modules would remain intact, but we shal see. Thanks for the update EtherealN.

[Bodo]

Yeah Speed mentioned charging for the compatibility update. Just before yours and my posts, EtherealN.

[YorZor]

If the modules would be incompatible DCS is useless on it's own if you ask me. The very thought behind the modules were to make 'em al compatible and let the planes work together. Otherwise what is the point?

[nomdeplume]

Otherwise what is the point?

To be able to fly high-fidelity simulations of combat aircraft? :D

 

Everyone who makes milsims has the dream of the 'virtual battlefield' where every unit is (can be) controlled by a player. Very few have managed to achieve anything like that.

 

There's a reason the default install directory for F4:AF is 'Battlefield Operations' - their plan was to extend it with additional aircraft etc. That never happened, but it hardly made the game pointless.

 

Most of the players are offline users anyway, and while the ability to play the "same" mission in a variety of roles is definitely nice, it's not exactly a killer feature.

[EtherealN]

Yeah Speed mentioned charging for the compatibility update. Just before yours and my posts, EtherealN.

 

Well, I meant someone with authority - like someone from ED. ;)

Speculations like those aren't helpful, since the good old Chinese Whispers can cause undue stress. AFAIK there are no plans to charge for a compatibility patch, but as always: nothing is set in stone. Everything depends on how big of a job it would be to make the compatibility patch, and not even the programmers can know that until after A-10C is done.

 

My bet is that it'll just get patched at some point, but it may take a while until the patch is done. (Just like it took a while for the patch to get done after the FC2 release.)

[Bodo]

Yeah, what will be will be.

 

I suppose when confronted with the need to spend money on an update most here, including me, would indeed pay the fee if they really had to.

 

Although I'd like to think that ED have a moral obligation to update the titles we've paid for to bring about whatever changes they deem necessary to offer the customers a full and finished product.

 

I'd also like to think there will be more patching for BS in the coming months/year(s) as it is a unique simulator and offers an experience that's worlds apart from the A10 module as I see it.

 

Whatever they (ED) decide to do I don't think there will be a problem when we also come realise that ED aren't just trying to make as much money as they can (well, not for the whole part) but actually trying to complete a project to the best of their ability.

[Lonecrow66]

It all depends on the missions created. For the most part I do not see team vs team (TvT) scenarios making up the majority of online missions. I think it will be pretty heavily divided between private co-ops and public co-ops. Furthermore the A-10C is likely to be MUCH more popular than the Ka-50 in the coming months.

 

I really want a longbow apache... pop up .. paint the targets, pop back down.. ripple off 6 mavericks..

 

Boom.

 

Well at least thats what it was like in Janes Longbow :)

 

Dunno how much fun BS is though. Could be fun if you had air support as well with the A10..

[EtherealN]

Although I'd like to think that ED have a moral obligation to update the titles we've paid for to bring about whatever changes they deem necessary to offer the customers a full and finished product.

 

Full and finished product, yes, but making a previous product compatible with a new product isn't quite in there. It is the intent of ED to do that as far as possible, but there's always the "reality" caveat. Basically, let's not focus too much on the military contracts and think ED is swimming in cash about them - it's actually a fairly uncertain business model since a lost contract is a huge downer, and contracts that do get awarded are usually (AFAIK that is - I'm not privy to the details of that) on a "Cost +" basis, which basically guarantees that the contractor won't make a loss, but doesn't exactly create huge profits either.

 

For an example of the Cost+ model, DICE (Digital Illusions) used that model for Rallisport Challenge, Midtown Madness 3 and the first Battlefield game, and while it made my investment in their stock fairly safe it also meant they didn't make mega-huge profits.

 

Doing business in the gaming sector is a rediculously complex thing - especially when you're independent, like ED. :/

[Lonecrow66]

Yeah its almost impossible to make money on sims .. there is such a small market for it. That is why many of us are willing to pay a little extra and wait a little longer and be a little more patient than most.

[Conure]

Shame the SU-27 can't be made compatible. Not that I've flown it, just heard good things. No doubt it'll be a future DCS project though.

[EtherealN]

I wouldn't say an Su-27 is entirely impossible to have as a future DCS model - the big question is which version of it. For example, I think people who are annoyed at F-15C superiority in FC2 will be dismayed if they end up in a situation with a US fighter DCS and the Su-27S - because then they'd have the automation modes that are missing from the FC2 F-15C to contend with, and they'd have the further complication of the 27S' radar handling (which is "easy mode" in FC2).

 

Newer versions of the 27 are likely better competitors to the US equipment in that regard, but they are also less likely to get as a DCS module due to the secrecy involved.

 

Just pray for a military contract with a spinoff allowance for the newer Flankers. Then it just might happen. :)

[Eight Ball]

Doing business in the gaming sector is a rediculously complex thing - especially when you're independent, like ED. :/

 

That's why I really think sims devs should assiociate with each others.

It's one of the only way I see to expand their respective community.

 

I have to admit seeing ED and BIS work together is a wet dream for me.

I know this implies a huge amount of work and problems but I really think both developers and both commnuties would greatly benefit from this.

 

Both studios works with military, and they both aim at the same thing : as close as possible to reality without being annoying but always challenging.

 

Sorry for the offtopic

 

On topic, even if I really would like to see a compatibily between A10C and KA50 I somehow feel like the A10C module is the true beginning of the DCS series. KA50 is a bit sitting between 2 chairs (lomac and DCS) and I feel like it was a proof of concept, to see how such a level of realism would be welcome by customers.

[VTJS17_Fire]

I really want a longbow apache... pop up .. paint the targets, pop back down.. ripple off 6 mavericks..

 

You mean Hellfire.

 

 

kind regards,

Fire

[EtherealN]

Also, that would be 8 Hellfires, not 6. :P

[EtherealN]

I have to admit seeing ED and BIS work together is a wet dream for me.

I know this implies a huge amount of work and problems but I really think both developers and both commnuties would greatly benefit from this.

 

"Huge amount of work" is an understatement. The technologies are completely incomaptible for consumer-style products.

[El_Roto]

I ordered the manual for FC2 even though I never fly it (I own it but with A-10C here...) because I collect flight manuals; I have the limited edition one from LOMAC to - I can't help myself.

 

The real point is these purchases help increase cash flow to the developer. I know most of us will fling ourselves onto a printed copy of the A-10C manual :worthy: but an FC2 manual or a tactical map bought now can help out the pre-release version.

 

Something to consider.

 

P.S. If it turns out TFC gets all the money from these sales, sorry to have wasted your time. :blush:

[Eight Ball]

"Huge amount of work" is an understatement. The technologies are completely incomaptible for consumer-style products.

Oh yeah I know, that's why I didn't mention any game names. But if somehow, in the future, they could find a way to create a common engine it might be interesting.

And has I said, it's just a dream :)

[Krippz]

I wouldn't say an Su-27 is entirely impossible to have as a future DCS model - the big question is which version of it. For example, I think people who are annoyed at F-15C superiority in FC2 will be dismayed if they end up in a situation with a US fighter DCS and the Su-27S - because then they'd have the automation modes that are missing from the FC2 F-15C to contend with, and they'd have the further complication of the 27S' radar handling (which is "easy mode" in FC2).

 

Agreed; people QQed over ERI I'm sure the whining will reach a fever pitch when true capabilities of the Eagle and Flanker are displayed in a potential DCS module.