Flaming Cliffs 3

[GGTharos]

No, I'm pretty certain the one who missed the point is you :)

[rattler]

No, I'm pretty certain the one who missed the point is you :)

 

No I don't think so, Just read what I did for 30+ years and use your brain to figure out the rest.;)

[EtherealN]

It's an old discussion that has been had many times basically, rattler. ;)

 

The point I'm making is that for a lot of modern platforms there is only one way to get a DCS level product made:

 

Condition one: military contract on it to get the required knowledge transfer.

Condition two: permission to use this information. (Or at least enough of it to make a good quality simulation.)

 

For example, say they were to make DCS:F-22 Raptor. Without a contract, it wouldn't be DCS quality - the information on RCS, avionics and weapons just wouldn't be good enough. Say they get a contract and thus get that information - they'd then need permission to use that because, again, without that information it would either be a reskinned Novalogic "sim" or just full of guesses: neither of those is "good enough".

 

This appears to have applied to a certain degree to DCS:A-10C vis a vis a DCS:A-10A - but to small enough of a degree that it is hard for customers to see what had to be omitted.

 

However, just like with DCS:A-10A there might be other interesting platforms that are possible to make even without special information from military contractors. How about a MiG-21 LanceR or an F-4 Phantom or something like that? But for the stuff that is in operation now and is considered "front line" equipment you can probably expect enough things to be classified that some "inside line" would be necessary.

 

In the end it's all a question of which quality level you want for the product. The higher the standard, the harsher the requirements, and ED has set an incredibly high bar with DCS:A-10C.

[Cali]

What hostility rattler? I sense none from GG, he is just asking a question.

[rattler]

You know E, this is a great conversation and I don't disagree a whole lot with your point of view. Too bad some people just don't understand. Been nice chatting but I guess maybe if we want to continue to have an informed conversation we will have to take it to PM. Cheers. E, have a great night.

 

 

rattler

[rattler]

What hostility rattler? I sense none from GG, he is just asking a question.

 

What question? That I don't know whats missing. My point was that there is information missing that can't be put to Public.ok. Could I tell you, no, I would be in contravention of my security clearance.ok. There is no way that specifics can be discussed either by me, TFC/ED or anyone connected to TFC/ED or Government Services. So that's it. Like it or not.

[Cali]

What question? That I don't know whats missing. My point was that there is information missing that can't be put to Public.ok. Could I tell you, no, I would be in contravention of my security clearance.ok. There is no way that specifics can be discussed either by me, TFC/ED or anyone connected to TFC/ED or Government Services. So that's it. Like it or not.

 

I know all about security clearances, you said GG was being hostile towards you, he was just asking a question. That is what I was saying, this was his question. We don't know everything, lots of info is kept in the dark from us. Even if I were to get a flight in a real sim, they would not let me fire AIM-120 and 7's. Even when I got my flight I wasn't allowed to take any pictures of the HUD, radar and some other instruments. I get what your saying.

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.

[rattler]

I know all about security clearances, you said GG was being hostile towards you, he was just asking a question. That is what I was saying, this was his question. We don't know everything, lots of info is kept in the dark from us. Even if I were to get a flight in a real sim, they would not let me fire AIM-120 and 7's. Even when I got my flight I wasn't allowed to take any pictures of the HUD, radar and some other instruments. I get what your saying.

 

Thanks Cali, you are getting the idea of what E. and I are talking about. This was just a nice conversation in which specifics can not be mentioned but still we can have some sort of rational conversation on the subject. Cheers, have a great night. or day.lol.:thumbup:

[Pyroflash]

Rattler, I think you are missing the point here. ED's attention to detail and ability to get at rather specific information is the thing that separates a DCS product from a Novalogic or Jane's sim. Yes there may be a few, very small, almost unnoticeable things omitted(Ky-58, slight errors in the TGP), but I would guess that the vast majority(probably 95%) of the aircraft is modeled after the real one. If you start telling ED to just guess at EVERYTHING, then we will end up with a far crappier GAME than the SIM we have now.

[rattler]

Rattler, I think you are missing the point here. ED's attention to detail and ability to get at rather specific information is the thing that separates a DCS product from a Novalogic or Jane's sim. Yes there may be a few, very small, almost unnoticeable things omitted(Ky-58, slight errors in the TGP), but I would guess that the vast majority(probably 95%) of the aircraft is modeled after the real one. If you start telling ED to just guess at EVERYTHING, then we will end up with a far crappier GAME than the SIM we have now.

 

No, I am not missing the point nor am I comparing TFC/ED to Novalogic etc.. and no they would not have 95% of the actual combat airframe information. Nobody but the Countries that fly that version would have the information and it would be 100% and classfied. The Public would not have any access to 95% of an operational airframe and components. I am not saying guess either. TFC/ED have a very high standard as was already mentioned. There is information available on airframes that would meet their high standard but it may not be the aircraft you wish to see right now as a DCS module. Just go back and read, especially E,s. last post. Then you may get the jest of our conversation.Cheers.

[Pyroflash]

Ethereal's last post seems to suggest that ED would need a military contract in order to properly model a front line aircraft. I do not see where you are going with this.

 

Also, in the same post you managed to say that ED guesses at making the A-10C, and then later that ED does not guess at the aircraft?

 

and no they would not have 95% of the actual combat airframe information[/Quote]

I am not saying guess either. TFC/ED have a very high standard as was already mentioned.[/Quote]

 

I am not arguing with you, I am just... Confused slightly by your comments.

[Cali]

If you argue with yourself....who wins? :bash:

[rattler]

Ethereal's last post seems to suggest that ED would need a military contract in order to properly model a front line aircraft. I do not see where you are going with this.

 

Also, in the same post you managed to say that ED guesses at making the A-10C, and then later that ED does not guess at the aircraft?

 

 

 

I am not arguing with you, I am just... Confused slightly by your comments.

 

 

Man where do you get that I said guess. It is a known fact that TFC/ED did not receive permission to release all information on the A10C. So if you take that as a guess, that is your statement not mine.

[manfrez01]

Rattler, I think you are missing the point here. ED's attention to detail and ability to get at rather specific information is the thing that separates a DCS product from a Novalogic or Jane's sim. Yes there may be a few, very small, almost unnoticeable things omitted(Ky-58, slight errors in the TGP), but I would guess that the vast majority(probably 95%) of the aircraft is modeled after the real one. If you start telling ED to just guess at EVERYTHING, then we will end up with a far crappier GAME than the SIM we have now.

 

 

well said:thumbup:

[rattler]

well said:thumbup:

 

Man does anybody read anymore. Go back and READ. Well said? what the H... is well said. Man no one is giving TFC/ED a hard time,just pointing out to some that simulation of front line airframe and components is not modeld to the degree people think. Yes TFC/ED has a high bar set for DCS, that we all agree, it is just not as high as you may think do to it's military classification of some airframes etc.. We all agree on that even TFC/ED. The somewhat mute point was that there are airframes and component knowledge out there that TFC/ED could use and keep their high standard, without a military contract but getting a military contract and doing a sim is great use of Company resources. Which seems to be the path TFC/ED is taking and that is why we wait for DCS modules when we really don't have to wait . Now do you get it. It may not be the new high tech airframes that everyone wants and if they want it and TFC/ED get a military Contract then it will be somewhat accurate and it won't be the 95+%, gees use your head,if you were a Country with a front end airframe and components are you going to give all the information so a Company can do a Flight Simulator game. Come on. Now that said yes there are airframes and components out there that can be used and meet TFc/ED's high level of standards just not the ones you may like, but then again you just might .Not saying anymore on the subject. It's covered.

Edited June 6, 2011 by rattler

[GGTharos]

I'm sure he gets it, but you happen to be wrong. ED can access documents and SME's that they could have had without the military contract. This is fact.

 

There are components of the aircraft for which you will most certainly not find the details for 'out there'. You need to be a qualified contractor for access. After you get these docs, you design your sim, and ask for the given customer to approve of what you've done, and -then- it can go out to the public.

 

For example, TGP was only pemitted to be modeled with a certain OFP (newer OFP might be capable of tracking multiple targets for example). Certain aspects of counter-measures are not modeled, etc. But even what you have in the sim right now would not have been there without that contract. Or at the very least, it would have required disproportionate effort to get it in there, not to mention finding A-10 SME's to flight test the FM.

 

With the contract, everyone's clear on what they can and cannot say, arrangements have been made, and in theory the amount of problems that can be caused by the project are reduced to a minimum.

 

You're right, a military contract isn't absolutely required ... in the sense that it could well be a contract from say, a company that builds the aircraft as well. For DCS level quality, sometimes said contract is the only way to go.

 

You might notice little line items like 'TVV logic tuned', as well as 'Caution panel logic tuned' ... all this stuff requires specific access which is much easier when you have the right contacts.

 

As a result, any aircraft they try to model without such access will be sub-part compared to the DCS 'golden standard'.

[EtherealN]

I think they'll do fine with DCS:AT-802U though. :D

[GGTharos]

You volunteering to SME it? :D

[EtherealN]

Hell yeah! :D

 

EDIT: Soooo much fun!

Edited June 6, 2011 by EtherealN

[sobek]

Is that a JSOW? Fired by a cropduster? Are you completely bonkers? :D

[EtherealN]

:D

 

(Actually, it's a Mini-TALON SOW, not JSOW, but still. :P )

From left to right, that there is a GAU-19, Mini-TALON, Hellfire, and four DAGR.

Edited June 6, 2011 by EtherealN

[Laud]

You can well protect your farm with that one! :D

[159th_Viper]

You can well protect your farm with that one! :D

 

I have an errant mole on the green across from my home. Judging from the size of the mole-hills I'm pretty sure that duster might struggle :megalol:

[rattler]

I'm sure he gets it, but you happen to be wrong. ED can access documents and SME's that they could have had without the military contract. This is fact.

 

There are components of the aircraft for which you will most certainly not find the details for 'out there'. You need to be a qualified contractor for access. After you get these docs, you design your sim, and ask for the given customer to approve of what you've done, and -then- it can go out to the public.

 

For example, TGP was only pemitted to be modeled with a certain OFP (newer OFP might be capable of tracking multiple targets for example). Certain aspects of counter-measures are not modeled, etc. But even what you have in the sim right now would not have been there without that contract. Or at the very least, it would have required disproportionate effort to get it in there, not to mention finding A-10 SME's to flight test the FM.

 

With the contract, everyone's clear on what they can and cannot say, arrangements have been made, and in theory the amount of problems that can be caused by the project are reduced to a minimum.

 

You're right, a military contract isn't absolutely required ... in the sense that it could well be a contract from say, a company that builds the aircraft as well. For DCS level quality, sometimes said contract is the only way to go.

 

You might notice little line items like 'TVV logic tuned', as well as 'Caution panel logic tuned' ... all this stuff requires specific access which is much easier when you have the right contacts.

 

As a result, any aircraft they try to model without such access will be sub-part compared to the DCS 'golden standard'.

 

You are correct. I did not dispute that it is much better to have a contract to help make a high quality sim such as DCS. I only said not all information on airframes and components on front line aircraft will be allowed to be released to the public. Is this not what you are saying also. Oh hell the one liners are better anyway, keep em coming.:megalol:

[tflash]

Hell yeah! :D

 

EDIT: Soooo much fun!

 

OMFG! Is this for Microsoft Gardening Simulation X or what? Weeding gets a totally new dimension!