Steel Jaw Posted June 4, 2011 Posted June 4, 2011 Mower made a funny. No, my parents did. 1 "You see, IronHand is my thing" My specs: W10 Pro, I5/11600K o/c to 4800 @1.32v, 64 GB 3200 XML RAM, Red Dragon 7800XT/16GB, monitor: GIGABYTE M32QC 32" (31.5" Viewable) QHD 2560 x 1440 (2K) 165Hz.
Viper101 Posted June 4, 2011 Posted June 4, 2011 No, my parents did. Even better.:megalol: [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]
Conure Posted June 4, 2011 Posted June 4, 2011 Would the ease of flying the FC2 stuff not give them a huge advantage? I'm speaking on a work load basis, don't the FC2 pilots have more time to dedicate to flying and combat, whereas DCS pilots have more to think about? Intel i7 6700k, Asus GTX1070, 16gb DDR4 @ 3200mhz, CH Fighterstick, CH Pro Throttle, CH Pro Rudder Pedals, Samsung Evo 850 SSD @ 500GB * 2, TrackIR 5 and 27" monitor running at 2560 * 1440, Windows 10.
tflash Posted June 4, 2011 Posted June 4, 2011 Would the ease of flying the FC2 stuff not give them a huge advantage? I'm speaking on a work load basis, don't the FC2 pilots have more time to dedicate to flying and combat, whereas DCS pilots have more to think about? I don't know, currently there are no fast jets in DCS. For A/G missions, it is mostly against AI no? The DCS A-10C is wildly superior to the A-10A in countermeasures, stand-off capability, armament, sensors, situational awareness, you name it. I can't possibly imagine it is "easier" to track targets with the Mark I eyeball in FC2 than it is with Litening pod in DCS? Plus the DCS A-10C has an incredibly smooth ride, whereas the A-10A in FC2 just flies ... weird, like there is no air or something. The Su-25T has less workload but has some limitations in countermeasures and stand-off capability. I made the same missions in FC2 and DCS:A-10C and I must say I do not find it safer to fly the Su-25T over the A-10C, quite on the contrary. [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]
kingneptune117 Posted June 4, 2011 Posted June 4, 2011 Off topic, but why does everyone here assume the next DCS module is the F18? Sure, there was that website that was made, but does nobody remember the SCREENSHOTS that ED released of F-16's and F-15's cockpit? "When once you have tasted flight, you will forever walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward, for there you have been, and there you will always long to return." - Leonardo da Vinci Intel i7-4790k | Cooler Master Hyper 212 Evo heat sink | Thermaltake Core V71 case | 750W EVGA PSU | 8gb G.SKILL Ripjaws DDR3 RAM | MSI Z97 Gaming 5 LGA 1150 motherboard | Samsung SSD | ASUS STRIX GTX 970 | Thrustmaster HOTAS Warthog | TIR 5 | Razer Deathadder | Corsair K70
aaron886 Posted June 4, 2011 Posted June 4, 2011 Frankly, I don't think anyone can take a reasonable guess at what is next. ED has a habit of working parallel projects, I think. Those F-16 screenshots have been around since KA-50 timeframe.
Pilotasso Posted June 4, 2011 Posted June 4, 2011 Off topic, but why does everyone here assume the next DCS module is the F18? Sure, there was that website that was made, but does nobody remember the SCREENSHOTS that ED released of F-16's and F-15's cockpit? F-15 became low priority since then. .
Dimebag1 Posted June 5, 2011 Posted June 5, 2011 Anyone have a link to those cockpit screenshots? I know it might be asking alot. [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]
KillarZ Posted June 5, 2011 Posted June 5, 2011 Anyone have a link to those cockpit screenshots? I know it might be asking alot. I'm not sure but I just googled Eagle Dynamics F-16 cockpit because I was curious too and I guess they are talking about this http://www.lockonfiles.com/index.php/topic/6501-f-16-wip-cockpit/
tflash Posted June 5, 2011 Posted June 5, 2011 Hmmmm ... F-16 is such a been there/done that deal. We've got Falcon series for ages. With a Hornet or Harrier ED could better show off their unique skills, imho. 1 [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]
Pilotasso Posted June 5, 2011 Posted June 5, 2011 Some people here werent even born when the last F-16 SIM was launched. :) 1 .
rattler Posted June 5, 2011 Posted June 5, 2011 Here's an even better question. Why doesn't TFC/ED just come out and say which ones are of interest to them for the next Module? Now you only have to guess on a couple instead of this. f-16 f-18c/e f-15e su-27 ef-2000 f-22 f-14 and on and on.:noexpression:
Boberro Posted June 5, 2011 Posted June 5, 2011 They can be interested all of them, doesn't matter. Whoever comes with money, whatever will be done ^^ Reminder: Fighter pilots make movies. Bomber pilots make... HISTORY! :D | Also to be remembered: FRENCH TANKS HAVE ONE GEAR FORWARD AND FIVE BACKWARD :D ಠ_ಠ ツ
rattler Posted June 5, 2011 Posted June 5, 2011 Well it's a sad state that they need a military contract just to do a model with some what accuracy, good enough for simulation. You don't need a military contract to build a reasonably accurate airframe. The A-10C just done, is only somewhat accurate as there are always secrets kept. It is only as accurate as the U.S. and other Countries that fly this Version wish it to be, so don't think that the A-10C is an accurate representation of that airframe, I assure you it is not. You can argue that statement all you like, the truth is it is only somewhat accurate. So I pose the question why does TFC/ED need a military contract? Just an excuse from where I sit. Yes This statment will probably be jumped on because certain people will say it is not economically sound for TFC/ED to do a simulator without a military contract, they are a small Company. If this is the case then we will be waiting a long time for a fast mover in a DCS module. Just my thoughts and I am sure people will disagree. That is there right to do so. Cheers. Rattler
Cali Posted June 5, 2011 Posted June 5, 2011 Hmmmm ... F-16 is such a been there/done that deal. We've got Falcon series for ages. With a Hornet or Harrier ED could better show off their unique skills, imho. Yes the F-16 has been done before, but so has the F-15, A-10, F-18, F-14, Su-27, F-22, F-117, Mig-29 and a bunch of other jets. But most of those games were made many years ago, with poor graphics, avionics and flight models. I would love to see all these jets in DCS within the next 6 months :D i7-4820k @ 3.7, Windows 7 64-bit, 16GB 1866mhz EVGA GTX 970 2GB, 256GB SSD, 500GB WD, TM Warthog, TM Cougar MFD's, Saitek Combat Pedals, TrackIR 5, G15 keyboard, 55" 4K LED
Nate--IRL-- Posted June 5, 2011 Posted June 5, 2011 So I pose the question why does TFC/ED need a military contract? They never said explicitly that it is a requirement for modelling a particular airframe, rather that if they get a contract, for lets say an F-16 for example, it would make better business sense to use the knowledge gained and work done for a commercial product. Nate Ka-50 AutoPilot/stabilisation system description and operation by IvanK- Essential Reading
Pyroflash Posted June 5, 2011 Posted June 5, 2011 Plus it helps because even though the information may technically be available, it doesn't mean that it is readily available, and having the ability to work closely with people who know an aircraft inside and out can go a long way to making the sim better than it otherwise could be. If you aim for the sky, you will never hit the ground.
Boberro Posted June 5, 2011 Posted June 5, 2011 Exactly. Gaining cash from the military contract + from general civil market = more than just one, civil area. Reminder: Fighter pilots make movies. Bomber pilots make... HISTORY! :D | Also to be remembered: FRENCH TANKS HAVE ONE GEAR FORWARD AND FIVE BACKWARD :D ಠ_ಠ ツ
aaron886 Posted June 5, 2011 Posted June 5, 2011 Some people here werent even born when the last F-16 SIM was launched. :) Now I feel old and I'm definitely not...! :D I remember that day, and meeting that big Binder of Love.
EtherealN Posted June 5, 2011 Posted June 5, 2011 Exactly. Gaining cash from the military contract + from general civil market = more than just one, civil area. It's what is commonly referred to in business as a "synergy". Basically splitting the development costs over several markets allows you to make an overall better product: if the military pays for the avionics modelling, you can spend the civilian budget on other things that might otherwise not have fit into the budget. That said, what Nate said. It's not an absolute requirement for all aircraft, but for some aircraft it might be since military contracts might be required to source a knowledge transfer. (You might for example remember that DCS:A-10A was switched to DCS:A-10C after permission was obtained to make the civilian product. I don't know if they would have been able to make DCS:A-10C to the standard it is today without the military contract and might have been forced to do a DCS:A-10A or other "less classified" platform.) [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Daniel "EtherealN" Agorander | Даниэль "эфирныйн" Агорандер Intel i7 2600K @ 4.4GHz, ASUS Sabertooth P67, 8GB Corsair Vengeance @ 1600MHz, ASUS GTX 560Ti DirectCU II 1GB, Samsung 830series 512GB SSD, Corsair AX850w, two BENQ screens and TM HOTAS Warthog DCS: A-10C Warthog FAQ | DCS: P-51D FAQ | Remember to read the Forum Rules | | | Life of a Game Tester
rattler Posted June 5, 2011 Posted June 5, 2011 Yes, all that said and to some degree, I agree by the way. My main point and I see that some agree that a military contract is not necessary to develop a simulation acceptable to TFC/ED requirements. Now let's touch briefly on a Military Contract. Most of these contracts are to build software for teaching aids in the classroom. They are not Military Flight Simulators. I would say that most will realize this. It is a much better way to teach classroom scenarios instead of the old blackboard/whiteboard type of teaching. Therefore they are made to do a specific thing and the software only has to be let's say for arguments sake 70% of the airframe performance. They are not teaching flight simulation but basic classroom situations. This has proven to be very successful in both Civil and Military applications. To get such contracts, yes are a great help to a Company who also has a department which is in the business of Combat Flight Sim. Games. To say that TFC/ED really needed this to go from an A10A to an A10C, well I would question that. Does it help to have a contract, most definitely. Just to touch on a comment that, TFC/ED does not necessarily need a Military Contract, I believe I read some where that this is their preferred method of doing business, so I will stand corrected on requirement and change to preferred. Cheers.
EtherealN Posted June 5, 2011 Posted June 5, 2011 To say that TFC/ED really needed this to go from an A10A to an A10C, well I would question that. If you dig way deep in archived stuff you might be able to find an announcement that TFC/ED were given permission by the USAF to make a DCS product based on the DTS product. I don't know the details, but this does seem to indicate that the information gained through the contract was essential to properly simulating the platform, and that the nature of the information was such that specific permission to produce the civilian product was required. Now, depending on which platform is to be simulated, this type of contract may or may not be required, and for some platforms even a contract will still not be enough (since there'll be too much that is classified or NOFORN that omission of those elements will leave obvious "holes" in the simulation that the customer will notice or that would cripple the platform). [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Daniel "EtherealN" Agorander | Даниэль "эфирныйн" Агорандер Intel i7 2600K @ 4.4GHz, ASUS Sabertooth P67, 8GB Corsair Vengeance @ 1600MHz, ASUS GTX 560Ti DirectCU II 1GB, Samsung 830series 512GB SSD, Corsair AX850w, two BENQ screens and TM HOTAS Warthog DCS: A-10C Warthog FAQ | DCS: P-51D FAQ | Remember to read the Forum Rules | | | Life of a Game Tester
rattler Posted June 5, 2011 Posted June 5, 2011 Yes E, I know what you are saying and we are both going in the same direction. Yes TFC/ED was given permission but ,lol ya a but, because of the nature of the Contract as you say permission for Civil release may or may not be required. In most case it probably would when dealing with Military from any Country. Now how to say this properly, let's see, yes permission was granted, that I agree, but permission for all information that was made available in the Contract, this I would doubt. I do believe they were given permission to release parts but not all, if you follow me. I have seen such Contracts and been a part of such in my 30+ years with the Canadian Avation Regulatory Department when we switched to this type of classroom teaching method. Hope this clears up my statements.
GGTharos Posted June 6, 2011 Posted June 6, 2011 So what if not all information was released? You don't even know what's missing, and you will NOT get the details already in the sim without military cooperation anyway. [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda
rattler Posted June 6, 2011 Posted June 6, 2011 So what if not all information was released? You don't even know what's missing, and you will NOT get the details already in the sim without military cooperation anyway. We had a nice conversation going, so why the hostility? I really don't care what is missing, somethings are missing. You missed the point entirely. Talk to E. maybe he can explain it to you. Gees man, chill.
Recommended Posts