Regroup evrything ?

[Divide Et Impera]

Wouldnt' it be easier to regroup all dcs modules and FC2 or at kraft only dcs modules in ONE .exe , and only disable a10c or ka-50 if you dont bought it ? Ifs annoying having to quit dcs a-10 in order to open dcs BS only to change flying machine ? Ifs the same engine , its compatible so why ? System Like add-ons with either a ka-50 base or a a10 one .

 

Sorry if thus question have already been asked but i havent found it

[VincentLaw]

I think the groundwork is already in place for this sort of thing in DCS. When you start up warthog or blackshark, the program is called "Launcher.exe", but when you actually start a mission, the launcher closes and a new process called "DCS.exe" starts up. once your mission ends, DCS closes and the launcher starts again.

 

My guess (don't take my word for it) is that at some point there will be one launcher.exe that can start a game for any DCS module that you have installed.

 

I doubt they will incorporate everything in a ONE.exe for a couple of reasons. First, that would waste additional disk space for content the user can't use. Its more efficient to distribute files at a need basis. Second, some people would certainly hack/mod their games to run the aircraft that they have not yet purchased. This has happened with other games like Total War, where they offered "bonus units" to people that preordered the game, but the same data came with all versions of the game for compatibility reasons.

[EtherealN]

No.

 

Same engine does not mean same everything. There are major components that DCS:A-10C needs that DCS:BS does not need nor use, and vice versa.

 

Think of it like this (this is extremely exhaggerated though, but for illustration): can't you make Call of Duty and Counterstrike run from the same EXE? They both use DirectX...

Common components does not mean integration is easy.

[power5]

It should be able to open the correct exe from the launcher as vincent stated. The launcher is just telling the computer to open the exe file, isnt it? The launcher would be shared between them, the game exe would be launched depending on which ac you choose. There is no reason to add BS textures and such to A10. Buy both if you want both ac. But instead of having to shut down the launcher and reopen the launcher of the other, just allow a single launcher to start either exe. The launcher just has to work with either install content so if only one is bought there is no excess data. To play online though, wouldnt both games need the same texture installs?

[EtherealN]

It should be able to open the correct exe from the launcher as vincent stated.

 

There's more than exes involved. WAY more. The exe is a very small component.

 

The launcher is just telling the computer to open the exe file, isnt it?

 

No, it also prepares the data the exe is supposed to run.

 

There is no reason to add BS textures and such to A10.

 

Textures are an even smaller component than the exe. They're absolutely tiny in this regard.

 

The launcher just has to work with either install content so if only one is bought there is no excess data. To play online though, wouldnt both games need the same texture installs?

 

Stop thinking about textures. Forget them entirely and completely and never think about them again. :P They're roughly as relevant as the Wünderbaum is the function of running a Mercedes with the same key as you got with a SAAB. There's a LOT of things that have to fit with each other, but the textures are 100% irrelevant.

 

It is theoretically possible to make something like that to happen, but it is not worth the considerable expense involved.

[EtherealN]

Textures are not code, textures are content data. The software already selects textures intelligently. It doesn't load winter terrain in summer!

 

To really strike this home: you can make it work with no textures at all.

 

They are THAT irrelevant. :P

[Grimes]

 

can't you make Call of Duty and Counterstrike run from the same EXE? They both use DirectX...

 

WHAT?

 

I'll prove you wrong with math!

 

(counterstrike + bad game design) X Michael Bay EXPLOSIONS = Call of Duty.

[VincentLaw]

There's more than exes involved. WAY more. The exe is a very small component...it also prepares the data the exe is supposed to run.

 

So you could have a meta-launcher that tells the launcher how to start the game without all of the interface stuff between. For some games, x-fire lets you join a friends game and skip all of the menu screens you normally have go through. That might even be something a 3rd party could do. The argument isn't that it can't be done of course (there are probably 100 different ways to make a-10 and ka-50 work from the same launcher) its that it would be a waste of ED's resources and time. For now, I agree with that argument. Just like it doesnt make sense for ED to throw all of their money into a DC at once... but down the road when we have 20 different DCS modules, who knows what we will see!

[EtherealN]

Launching a game like how xfire does is not relevant to the discussion here, all you need is an exe that will accept arguments. You already have this with DCS - you could theoretically make your own launcher that will call the appropriate DCS module depending on your input. You can do this with a rudimentary knowledge of Java, QT, or even AutoIT.

 

The question being discussed is worlds away from that.

[VincentLaw]

Its annoying having to quit dcs a-10 in order to open dcs BS only to change flying machine ?

 

it is relevant specifically to that part of the question. I'm pretty sure the original poster is more interested in being able to select missions for either aircraft from a single menu than what method is used to achieve that end. I am just trying to toss up possible alternative solutions to the same problem, but obviously I am not the most qualified person for doing that.

[Speed]

I don't see why it couldn't be done... the final code might run a bit slower, but Ethereal, why couldn't there just be a ton of if statements like this:

 

if blackshark {

//do some blackshark-specific code

 

}

 

else if a10 {

//do some a-10 specific code

 

}

 

You'd probably have some long freezes as you switched between aircraft.

 

I think the more important question might be why would you want to do this in the first place? It's going to VASTLY over-complicate the code. The modules could be easily (relatively) integrated under a single UI, but integrating the .exes together would be a stupid waste of ED developer time, and would slow down the game probably by a tiny margin (but potentially a huge margin if done wrong). If we want to see code that is even more stable and bug-free than it is now becoming, if we want to see more modules, etc, then ED needs to spend time developing things that actually matter and doesn't make their code impossibly hard for them to understand and debug.

 

At least, that's how I see it..

 

And Ethereal is totally right about textures... graphics and textures are just a tiny bit of the pie as to what is going on. These DCS modules are truly simulators. Why do you think that the graphics are so, if you excuse me saying so, mediocre-looking compared to HAWX and Call of Dumbass? It's because the simulation engine is actually running physics, avionics engines, huge worlds, ballistics, massive AI battles, wingman AI, etc, etc, that FPS games and the like never have to.

Edited July 20, 2011 by Speed

[Frostiken]

I understand exactly what he means. Basically, DCS *should* function as the engine with the game world and physics functioning as a single common component. When you load a new module, it loads the 3D cockpit, all the new code for the avionics and the like, and plugs it into the core engine component. Effectively this means that the module could be free and you simply release aircraft packs for it.

 

The theory being that everything is consolidated saving a LOT of disk space and it really would be much more manageable for ED, since they wouldn't have to individually update future engine iterations - A-10, KA-50, and LOMAC would've all worked together in MP straight out of the box, since the MP component is the exact same.

 

This would also have the benefit of making 3rd party mods and addons far easier to manage, as well as streamlining the whole interface.

 

Unfortunately with three different programs out already it seems it would be quite a bit of effort to slice out the aircraft components in a way that makes them easy to 'plug-in'.

[winz]

it really would be much more manageable for ED, since they wouldn't have to individually update future engine iterations

 

As a SW developer I assure that the opposite is in fact the true.

 

Every engine change would have to been tested on other modules as well. What worse, every module would have to be compatibile with the engine change at the time the change is made. Every small bugfix for A-10C would have to be tested on Ka50.

 

An example - during the development process of A-10C the radio system has changed to allow different aircrafts/atcs/.... to use different frequencies. In that time some resources would have to been shifted from A-10C to Ka-50 to implement support for such feature. The same hold true for every new feature.

 

And keep in mind, that the core engine is evolving rapidly and we have no idea how many new features were implemented for A-10C, because we can only directly see a small portion of them.

 

It's much more simplier to freeze the Ka-50 branch for the time A-10C is developed. And you can dedicate all your resources on that what matters most - getting a new modul out as soon as possible.

[Divide Et Impera]

But if as ED says : there Will be a compatible patch wich Will allow players of ka 50 and a10 flying together . If this is possible , wich engine is used in this future multiplayer so ?

[EtherealN]

But if as ED says : there Will be a compatible patch wich Will allow players of ka 50 and a10 flying together . If this is possible , wich engine is used in this future multiplayer so ?

 

Being multiplayer compatible is not the same thing as being, well, the same thing. "All" you need for this is to have them talk the same language in the MP context. (This is still complex, but a lot easier than what's proposed in this thread.)

 

If you run a server in Ka-50, the server still doesn't need to know pretty much anything at all about the A-10C. All of that happens in the A-10C client, right. ;) All it needs is the "language" and some friendly hashes so it can integrity-check the A-10C client and make sure it's not modded in ways that might be considered cheating.

 

Remember for example FC2 and DCS:BS in multiplayer right now - FC2 doesn't have the Ka-50 cockpit, avionics, flight model or any of the things that make DCS... DCS. What it has is the ability to speak a language that DCS:BS 1.0.2 understands.

[Divide Et Impera]

+1 . i've understand now , thank you :)