Hope for another FC2 compatibility patch

[Distiler]

Think in terms of keeping the online community together, keeping its momentum, and it will make sense.

Edited February 22, 2011 by Distiler

[KeyCat]

No it wouldn't make sense to dump FC2 in my opinion.

 

Although the FC2 jets are simpler, they do fill out the multiplayer. Look at the kind of combined servers we have running now and how great it is to have the ka-50 along with the jets. Add the A-10C working against the Su-25t and the Ka-50 and it will be awesome MP.

 

+1

 

/KC

[Boberro]

There wouldn't be any discussion if modules appeared really fast. As we know (from various sometimes understandable reasons) they don't. This is where LO2 could fill big gap.

[BKLronin]

I also would appreciate that (for SU25T at least) since the engine hasn´t changed toooo much since the last update (KA50 level) I could magine it. I guess most of the work for this to happen is already done. The one thing that is maybe missing is time for the devs. I suppose!

[Sawamura]

I wouldn't mind paying for it!

 

+1. :thumbup:

[Rikus]

They sell FC2 with compatibilyte with KA50.

 

If they donґt wanґt to do compatible with A10, ok but KA50 will receibe the patch and upgrades to be compatible with A10, so:

 

FC2 will receive this upgrade too to make it compatible with Ka50?

 

Greetings

[104th_Crunch]

There wouldn't be any discussion if modules appeared really fast. As we know (from various sometimes understandable reasons) they don't. This is where LO2 could fill big gap.

 

You are right. If modules appeared fast there would be no discussion. Like I said if making a patch for FC2 to be compatible with A-10C takes just weeks, then not really a big deal. If, however, making a patch for FC2 means that DCS:Fighter takes more months to come, then we have to wait longer for DCS:Fighter. Maybe some don't care if we wait longer and are happy with FC2. I am not one of those. I want DCS:Fighter more than anything else. Again, that is just me. I realize others may feel different. Also, ED I am sure will do what makes sense for them, but perhaps I am not a minority.

 

Don't forget there is also more work with the planned Ka-50 patch. As well as the plan to include Nevada map etc in A-10 as per Jim Mac's interview, "The map will be released as part of an Upgrade Pack later in 2011."

Edited February 22, 2011 by Crunch

[GhostDog]

You are right. If modules appeared fast there would be no discussion. Like I said if making a patch for FC2 to be compatible with A-10C takes just weeks, then not really a big deal. If, however, making a patch for FC2 means that DCS:Fighter takes more months to come, then we have to wait longer for DCS:Fighter. Maybe some don't care if we wait longer and are happy with FC2. I am not one of those. I want DCS:Fighter more than anything else. Again, that is just me. I realize others may feel different. Also, ED I am sure will do what makes sense for them, but perhaps I am not a minority.

 

Don't forget there is also more work with the planned Ka-50 patch. As well as the plan to include Nevada map etc in A-10 as per Jim Mac's interview, "The map will be released as part of an Upgrade Pack later in 2011."

 

Just bear in mind that ED has explained, repeatedly, that their civilian business is driven by their military contracts, not the other way around. There is no guarantee of any sort that DCS:Fighter will ever be in the pipeline. If they win 10 military contracts for 10 helos, then it will be DCS:Helo for the foreseeable future, unless their business model changes drastically, and given what I understand of the economics of the study sim genre, that does not seem likely at all. That's why I'm also on the bandwagon for fully exploiting FC2 as a stopgap, in multiplayer if nothing else, unless and until other fixed wing modules are in the pipeline.

[Dr_Arrow]

would be great - especially the mission generator from A-10C. Sadly offline mode in FC2 is plain simply dead - no new campaigns, nearly no new missions. The mission generator would be a gift from heavens for me, regarding FC2.

[Dudikoff]

Just bear in mind that ED has explained, repeatedly, that their civilian business is driven by their military contracts, not the other way around. There is no guarantee of any sort that DCS:Fighter will ever be in the pipeline.

 

Hmm, sounds like a Steel Beasts Pro model (which doesn't make me happy as we're still waiting for somebody to order the damn T-72/80/90; I would hate to wait that much for a Flanker or smth else Russian).

 

I guess that would depend on how lucky they are in finding the military customers. The way I understood it is that the ANG is planning to use the simulator more of as a transition tool for the new cockpit systems in the A-10C for their pilots rather than a combat simulator. On the other hand, the military might realize that they got more than they asked for and order some more types. Time will tell.

 

But I'd be willing to pay for FC2.5 (probably twice, as I keep buying the download version as soon as it's released and then can't hold myself when I find it on the shelf) - I guess most of the really hard stuff was already done for FC2 so it's mostly a matter of porting the new features which FC could use (like the improved terrain graphics and expanded mission editor features). It would need resources, but if the next project is still in its early stages, I'd expect some resources (for testing and patching) would be available to play with this in parallel with patching up the A-10. Plus, the DCS:A-10 combines with FC better than the Ka-50 does - the Ka-50 is sort of an orphan with no other helicopters (or supporting Russian aircraft for that matter) and I fear it might stay that way.

[TAIPAN_]

Just bear in mind that ED has explained, repeatedly, that their civilian business is driven by their military contracts, not the other way around. There is no guarantee of any sort that DCS:Fighter will ever be in the pipeline. If they win 10 military contracts for 10 helos, then it will be DCS:Helo for the foreseeable future, unless their business model changes drastically, and given what I understand of the economics of the study sim genre, that does not seem likely at all. That's why I'm also on the bandwagon for fully exploiting FC2 as a stopgap, in multiplayer if nothing else, unless and until other fixed wing modules are in the pipeline.

 

Exactly.

 

The chances of getting 2 dcs fighters with exciting head to head (eg wvr vs bvr specialties) is slim to none.

 

Even if we had one DCS fighter, seriously how long will you want to shoot ai planes? Ground pounding co op is fine but air to air is best with humans and a variety of a2a specialties to see who can push their planes advantage.

[Exorcet]

If the next DCS is DCS:Fighter, I'm all for dropping FC2 into oblivion. I like the game, but it's really only a placeholder at this point. Choppers and attack planes don't work for me either.

 

Even if we had one DCS fighter, seriously how long will you want to shoot ai planes? Ground pounding co op is fine but air to air is best with humans and a variety of a2a specialties to see who can push their planes advantage.

 

1 DCS Fighter is enough. Every server would just be Red Flag with live ammo.

[104th_Crunch]

Even if we had one DCS fighter, seriously how long will you want to shoot ai planes? Ground pounding co op is fine but air to air is best with humans and a variety of a2a specialties to see who can push their planes advantage.

 

Ask the guys who play Falcon 4 with the same jet in MP.

 

Also, I understand the military contract thing that might sway ED into what they do next in DCS, but I don't think that is relevant in terms of a FC2 patch.

[dooom]

wait - i thought there was all this noise in the hanger a week ago that it was leaked there was a DCS fighter in the pipe based off some interview? Yea or Nay?

[Kuky]

No, they said it will be fixed wing aircraft so it doesn't mean it's a fighter

[dooom]

ah - right - the helo comment a few posts back threw me off - thought i missed something.

 

danke

[Opoch]

It maybe that a new update to FC 2 would be in the best interest of ED, but I am not looking forward to it. I bought FC2, but I certainly wouldn't do it over again. Just my personal preference after playing with it a bit; it reminds me of my memories of Black Shark at release, where missiles were far to easy to avoid, or if they hit you they often didn't do any damage. And perhaps I am the only one here, but I actually like multiplayer a lot more in 1.0.1

 

I guess I wouldn't be so opposed to a patch if it didn't ravenge my A-10C the same way it broke BS. I could never get 1.0.2 to work right, so I went back to 1.0.1 after a while :(. I might try the patch if they do decide to update FC2, but I'm afraid that I'll have the same experience as I did before.

[aaron886]

Yeah please God no. It was a disaster.

[GhostDog]

No, they said it will be fixed wing aircraft so it doesn't mean it's a fighter

 

I've been away for awhile, I didn't realize there was fixed wing project in the works. And you're right, fixed wing doesn't necessarily mean fighter, though I do find it hard to envision DCS:Tanker or some such :megalol:

[Pyroflash]

Maybe it was a decision based off of the bad tanker AI, and how hard it is to get the boom operator to do what you want.

 

Every time I go to tank up it goes something like this:

:pilotfly::joystick::(:doh::mad::cry::helpsmilie:

 

But seriously, I really hope that FC2 gets merged with WH and BS; at least until ED releases a proper fighter, at that point they really should drop FC2 as it would create a huge imbalance with the air-air(eg. New players in DCS: Fighter would not stand a chance against the FC2 players as the systems would overwhelm them during combat, and really good DCS: Fighter pilots would have an unfair advantage over FC2 players with their superior and more capable aircraft). Until that time comes however, I have no issue with integrating A-G DCS aircraft with FC2.

 

Edit: Fixed atrocious spelling mistakes.

Edited February 24, 2011 by Pyroflash

[KeyCat]

...at that point they really should drop FC2 as it would create a huge imbalance with the air-air(eg. New players in DCS: Fighter would not stand a chance against the FC2 players <snip>

 

Easily fixed by mission design. If you want "fair" game only include DCS titles in the mission and if you don't care and/or play co-op's mix FC2 and DCS.

 

/KC

[TAIPAN_]

Easily fixed by mission design. If you want "fair" game only include DCS titles in the mission and if you don't care and/or play co-op's mix FC2 and DCS.

 

/KC

 

Exactly, fairness isn't the priority for a simulation producer. Otherwise we would have to make the A-10C perform like a black shark :)

 

Mission design is always the key. Put some mobile SAMs or some air support if one side is having trouble.

[GGTharos]

Are you a betting man? ... Because I'm fairly certain that a DCS-Fighter would eat up an FC2 fighter no matter whose hands it was in. ;)

 

at least until ED releases a proper fighter, at that point they really should drop FC2 as it would create a huge imbalance with the air-air(eg. New players in DCS: Fighter would not stand a chance against the FC2 players as the systems would overwhelm them during combat, and really good DCS: Fighter pilots would have an unfair advantage over FC2 players with their superior and mroe capable aircraft). Until that time comes however, I have no issue with integrating A-g DCS aircraft with FC2.

[Geskes]

Just to put my 2 cents in:

 

Please do not spend time on compatibility with FC2.

[golfsierra2]

Just to put my 2 cents in:

 

Please do not spend time on compatibility with FC2.

 

I agree with Geskes. DCS:A10C was delayed for months because of the compability requests for FC2 and DCS:BS.

 

Let's face it:

Ensuring downwards compability between new DCS modules and older version (also FC2) will take away much of the resources needed for development of the DCS series.

 

You wouldn't try to make your Blue Ray player compatible to 78 RPM records, just because there are so many old records around, won't you ??