Flaming Cliffs 3

[Vecko]

I'm sold since page 01. Bring it on ED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :pilotfly::pilotfly::pilotfly::pilotfly::pilotfly::pilotfly::pilotfly::pilotfly::pilotfly::pilotfly:

 

There you go... First preview ? :P

 

Edited June 19, 2011 by Vecko

[Viper101]

Honestly, if ED wants to kill FC2, than how about just kill the entire chain (FC2, Ka50, A-10C, F-15E) by making a brand new simulator.

 

Not sure about others but I for one would like to spend my money on a brand new simulator rather than another re-manufactured version of an 8 year old game.:music_whistling:

[GGTharos]

Put your money where your mouth is and make one. It's easy to say such things when you're clueless.

[Viper101]

Put your money where your mouth is and make one. It's easy to say such things when you're clueless.

 

Pretty hostile response. I would rather put my money into Eagle Dynamics pockets when I see a brand new game and not some HDR sparkled up version of a simulator near a decade old. And no, I'm not clueless.

[GGTharos]

Yes, you are :)

[Viper101]

Yes, you are :)

 

Oh really? Explain, Mister Non-Eagle Dynamics employee/ED Beta tester...

[Nate--IRL--]

...... not some HDR sparkled up version of a simulator near a decade old. And no, I'm not clueless.

 

Yep the A-10 in DCS is identical to LOMACs, just with fluffy HDR - If this picture didn't have "Lock On" on it I'd never be able to tell the difference - other than that, they are exactly the same simulator in every way.

 

 

Nate

[EtherealN]

Pretty hostile response. I would rather put my money into Eagle Dynamics pockets when I see a brand new game and not some HDR sparkled up version of a simulator near a decade old. And no, I'm not clueless.

 

Did you buy Doom 3? Quake 4? I mean, they're just sparkled up versions of Quake, so meh at paying for them... ;)

 

And yes, there is still a good bit of code in the Id engines that go all the way back there. (Quake 2 was basically Quake 1 but with a few more features activated, since Q1-gen hardware couldn't do it and they didn't have the time to finish the polish.) They did throw a LOT out for Rage, and Carmack has publicly stated that that was a massive mistake: it caused them to spend 7 years almost without in-house releases. So in future, they'll go back to working iteratively; just like ED is doing.

Edited June 20, 2011 by EtherealN

[GGTharos]

As explained by EtherealN, the graphics engine is undergoing an iterative rewrite/upgrade. This means that rather than throwing out all their existing code and staying out of the picture for x amount of years just to develop a new graphics engine - they can keep putting product out and upgrade the engine and functionality with each release.

 

Since I assume you haven't noticed, the graphics engine has already been upgraded to DX9, from DX8, texture resolution was increased, new 3D model formats created. HDR and other features were enabled as a result of these upgrades, as were things like soft shadows.

 

This is just for the graphics engine. The cockpit engine is new.

The FM is new.

The sound engine was ripped out, rewritten, and is still being upgraded.

The Mission Editor was ripped out, replaced, and upgraded with each iteration, not to mention the ME AI capabilities, added ability to script things, etc etc etc.

 

Clear now?

 

Oh really? Explain, Mister Non-Eagle Dynamics employee/ED Beta tester...

[104th_Crunch]

What the heck. I knew all those hours by ED and beta testers were going towards something. You guys weren't just drinking vodka all that time after all!

[Moa]

Honestly, if ED wants to kill FC2, than how about just kill the entire chain (FC2, Ka50, A-10C, F-15E) by making a brand new simulator.

 

Not sure about others but I for one would like to spend my money on a brand new simulator rather than another re-manufactured version of an 8 year old game.:music_whistling:

 

Well, there are things in LockOn and DCS that would be nice to change and there are things that simply don't need to be changed. To me it seems that ED is 'evolving' the system rather than a radical revolutionary re-write as you suggest.

 

Throwing everything out means throwing out all the features and all the bugfixes, all the data and accumulated knowledge, and then spending years (and a lot of money) just to get feature parity. Then you hope that life is easier and you can add stuff at a greater rate and with less defects, but it is always a gamble and systems always get new limitations built-in (especially real-time systems).

 

In fact, when a developer says, "Hey, the system would be so much better if we just started *everything* from scratch, so that's what we'll do" then you have cause to worry. Look at the pains IL-2 Cliffs of Dover is going through as they did a re-write from Java & C++ to C#.Net. Certainly they'll reap rewards (single programming language simplifies things) and end up with snazzy features but in the mean time they are really struggling to match the efficiency of their older code-base.

 

It is always that way and a thorough analysis has to be made before throwing the old code out. 'Old' code is often stable code. New code doesn't have time to have all the kinks worked out.

 

If you don't think DCS is evolving then I strongly suggest you hop in the A-10C and do a night mission with the Night Vision Googles. Crunch, MoGas and I flew one last night and the effects were incredible - from blooming of stars, lights, MFDs and HUD; twinkling (shader convolution effect) of light sources; city lights on the ground; the whole world looking reasonably much as expected through NVG (unlike the postage-stamp sized worlds of Modern Warfare through NVG) - and all running at fantastic frame rates.

 

So, GGTharos' response does not seem to me to be soley intended to insult you, it is just incredulity that you are unaware of the massive changes in A-10C to bring us lovely things like the NVG effects, and the lack of business nous that comes from suggesting the 'tabula rasa' re-boot of an evolved system. Especially a system that has already had a considerable re-architecture. This started with Ka-50, which has a very different internal structure from FC1, and then A-10C has evolved further - much to my chagrin as I struggle to keep up with the changes with my own mods.

 

So, please don't be surprised at the reaction of the team. It's just they have already done a re-write and are evolving from there, even if most people haven't been paying enough attention or don't know enough to notice.

 

Incidentally, I consider my money very well spent on A-10C. Each day I'm seeing more and more little features that make it a wonderful aircraft and entertaining sim. The Warthog is already head and shoulders better than any other sim out there (including Ka-50). If they continue at this rate DCS:Fighter is going to be sublime.

Edited June 20, 2011 by Moa
typos: cause I'm a retard

[Cali]

Night does look very nice in DCS-A10C, I thought the night in Open Falcon looked really good, a lot better then lock on/FC2. I always wondered why lock on wasn't up to par on that aspect compared to F4. I will always buy flight sim games from ED, cause they are really good even with some of the problems they have. You aren't going to find another modern fighter sim out there that offer the things we have in FC2 and the DCS series. We can't have our cake and eat it to. There are always going to be things we want added or fixed, that's how people are.

 

I know it's going to take a long time for DCS to have the same amount of jets we have in FC2, I'll be there and many others will too. Nothing we can do but wait, play what we have now or whatever else you want to do to past time/your hobby.

Edited June 20, 2011 by Cali

[Boberro]

Put your money where your mouth is and make one.

 

:D

LMAO

[tflash]

As I understand it today, DCS is the product line where ED tries to innovate and make the simulator advance. Lockon is a very popular title with a unique online gameplay that has a large user base.

 

So, it would not surprise me if gradually advances made in DCS (e.g. for the GUI, the terrain, the environment, compatibility with new OS and hardware) find their way into FC, as it has been the case up till now.

 

I would certainly appreciate it!

[FLANKERATOR]

Currently, DCS series is without any possible doubt the BEST product in the modern air combat simulation market, period. The achieved quality is simply amazing and I see it second to none at the moment.

 

Even though, I think that FC will keep attracting simmers for a long period of time, regardless of whether or not new versions are released. We certainly hope for a new FC, and am sure while saying "we" MANY others wish the same. Now the question is : Why on earth FC is still so much appreciated by many when a top notch quality Sim like DCS has been introduced? aren't we "hardcore" enough for DCS? Of course We Are.

So maybe are we just appreciating things in FC maybe others could not see or simply do not want to see...?

[GGTharos]

Few people have the drive and passion to deal with a lot of the intricacies and details of a DCS sim.

 

Look at some posts from new people: 'How can I have my plane started instead of memorizing the start-up sequence' ... as an example.

 

They all have good reasons, and it isn't always fair to say 'this isn't the game for you', either.

 

Speaking of which, there's a tendency towards rude elitism (I don't mind elitism, it isn't entirely a bad thing. It's the delivery) from the flight sim core, and the funny thing is that they can't either agree on what hard-core is, or just plain don't have a real clue as to what hard-core should be, assuming that 'hard core' is some notion of realism.

 

To these people, FC's relative simplicity is appealing. Though frankly the only difference is the amount of button-pushing required to complete some operation, because everything else is the same, ie your action loop is:

 

Aviate

Communicate

Navigate

Scan

Detect

Designate

Launch

Evade

 

and then back to the start. More or less, anyway. None of that changes from FC to DCS. It's just that operation becomes more complex. But even then, a player can get by just by knowing how to use his sensors and launch his weapons, and still enjoy it. You don't need to know all the lingo etc.

[pappavis]

Lockon1.0 was a massive major upgrade to Flanker 2.0.

And then, came LockOn 1.0 vs LOFC 1.2 is the same engine but incredible advancement, maybe not in Gfx but also to missile modelling, accuracy etc etc.

 

I'd love a FC3 upgrade, perhaphs without funky cockpit shadows.. but, the ability to fly (online) Su-25T alongside the A-10C would be absolutley awesome.

 

 

it is just incredulity that you are unaware of the massive changes in A-10C to bring us lovely things like the NVG effects

[Svend_Dellepude]

I have now read the entire 52 pages!

[Dudikoff]

So what is your point? That everybody should relinquish flying planes of DCS standard because in less time, he can get FC with better graphics? Doesn't make sense to me. :)

 

I'd suggest you read your original post and my answer a few more times then. I don't see where you get that the DCS and FC3 are mutually exclusive.

[FLANKERATOR]

Few people have the drive and passion to deal with a lot of the intricacies and details of a DCS sim.

 

Look at some posts from new people: 'How can I have my plane started instead of memorizing the start-up sequence' ... as an example.

 

They all have good reasons, and it isn't always fair to say 'this isn't the game for you', either.

 

Speaking of which, there's a tendency towards rude elitism (I don't mind elitism, it isn't entirely a bad thing. It's the delivery) from the flight sim core, and the funny thing is that they can't either agree on what hard-core is, or just plain don't have a real clue as to what hard-core should be, assuming that 'hard core' is some notion of realism.

 

To these people, FC's relative simplicity is appealing. Though frankly the only difference is the amount of button-pushing required to complete some operation, because everything else is the same, ie your action loop is:

 

Aviate

Communicate

Navigate

Scan

Detect

Designate

Launch

Evade

 

and then back to the start. More or less, anyway. None of that changes from FC to DCS. It's just that operation becomes more complex. But even then, a player can get by just by knowing how to use his sensors and launch his weapons, and still enjoy it. You don't need to know all the lingo etc.

 

Definitely, Agreed. What I was trying to refer to is the PvP environment that FC is offering, and more specifically in the air-to-air arena. So many players and squadrons are mainly oriented air-to-air. This is the only advantage FC is having over DCS at the moment. Once PvP Air Superiority tasks become possible in DCS, I think few, very few players will stick to FC, only those, like you said, who lack the drive and passion to deal with a lot of the intricacies and details of a DCS sim. For the rest, it will be just perfect !

[Cali]

Flankerator air to air is not the only advantage fc2 has over DCS, the amount of aircraft is another. When DCS has more then 1 type of aircraft, then the tides will start to turn, but until then FC2 will always win that battle.

 

Pushing a lot of buttons is nice, but it's only a part of learning the jet. Don't know if that makes sense to you guys, but it's off to bed for me.

[tflash]

I have now read the entire 52 pages!

 

Keep us informed of your progress, Sven! ;)

DCS manuals should be no problem for you!

[Krippz]

Keep us informed of your progress, Sven! ;)

DCS manuals should be no problem for you!

 

LMAO

[FLANKERATOR]

Flankerator air to air is not the only advantage fc2 has over DCS, the amount of aircraft is another. When DCS has more then 1 type of aircraft, then the tides will start to turn, but until then FC2 will always win that battle.

 

Pushing a lot of buttons is nice, but it's only a part of learning the jet. Don't know if that makes sense to you guys, but it's off to bed for me.

 

 

Indeed Cali, was referring to the dissimilar aircraft dimension as well when I mentioned "air to air" in FC. This wont be possible in DCS until we get at least 2 fast mover modules.

[Lixma 06]

Assuming the truth of FC-3, I wonder if ED would transplant the DCS A-10C FM into the 'A.