DCS Longevity

[Bumbblbee]

Here is my wish,

I wish that DCS continues to release these amazing flight sims and continues to expand upon it's already wonderful product. I wish that with each modular release that there will be compatability patches and continual updating to the older modules so they can all be flown together. I wish that ED, TFC and DCS continues to have a solid fan base and can grow as a company so they can provide us with these sims for many years to come.

It seems to me that our "wishes" (lol) are resting upon the shoulders of DCS and their team to continue to provide the simming community with great products such as A-10C and the KA-50. The flight sim world has changed over the years and were running out of options as consumers. It's such a relief to have a new, fresh sim to fly rather than decade old revamps.

Thank you DCS, keep up the good work.

 

B

[Mohamengina]

I hope they add in more controllable things than just jets - such as boats (battleships, frigates,air-craft carriers etc..) and land vehicles so there could be epic online battles.

[EtherealN]

I hope they add in more controllable things than just jets - such as boats (battleships, frigates,air-craft carriers etc..) and land vehicles so there could be epic online battles.

 

Well, the whole thing with "jets" is already done with since the first DCS prodict was a helicopter. ;) (Though given, it's a turboshaft machine so the engine-part itself relies partly on the same principle.)

 

That said, yes, the vision includes more than "just" aircraft.

[Mohamengina]

Well, the whole thing with "jets" is already done with since the first DCS prodict was a helicopter. ;) (Though given, it's a turboshaft machine so the engine-part itself relies partly on the same principle.)

 

That said, yes, the vision includes more than "just" aircraft.

 

Excited/Wallet open.

[Phantom88]

Here is my wish,

I wish that DCS continues to release these amazing flight sims and continues to expand upon it's already wonderful product. I wish that with each modular release that there will be compatability patches and continual updating to the older modules so they can all be flown together. I wish that ED, TFC and DCS continues to have a solid fan base and can grow as a company so they can provide us with these sims for many years to come.

It seems to me that our "wishes" (lol) are resting upon the shoulders of DCS and their team to continue to provide the simming community with great products such as A-10C and the KA-50. The flight sim world has changed over the years and were running out of options as consumers. It's such a relief to have a new, fresh sim to fly rather than decade old revamps.

Thank you DCS, keep up the good workB

 

I'm onboard with your point,but I feel at some time,as technology advances it becomes futile to try to have compatability between older and newer modules.I think the work to do so would bogg down the team and distract from making newer better[graphics/Flight model] Flight sims..At some point,You have to let the old stuff go.

Edited September 19, 2011 by Phantom88

[Yskonyn]

Well, the whole thing with "jets" is already done with since the first DCS prodict was a helicopter. ;) (Though given, it's a turboshaft machine so the engine-part itself relies partly on the same principle.)

 

That said, yes, the vision includes more than "just" aircraft.

 

I forsee a high tech version of Jane's Fleet Command, but not only with naval forces.

What's in a name, eh? Digital Combat Simulator

That might even included ARMA infantery-style operations. :D One can only wish!

The ultimate wet dream would be modules compatible with eachother to make one big Dangerous Waters/Sub Command, Jane's Fleet Command, ARMA, Steel Beasts Pro PE, DCS Jets/Helo's combat environment.

 

Still at the pace programming goes (in general) I will be well beyond retirement once this is all in place. :megalol:

 

Personally, I just would be very content it DCS continues to release combat flightsim products and refrain from adding in boats, tanks and whatnot if that means aviation modules get released faster. :joystick:

[Milene]

At the rate things are going right now.... the engine will be outdated reaching module 3 or 4 :(

 

They either need to hire more staff or work a bit faster cause one plane or helo per update is not gonna cut it in the end.

[kylania]

They either need to hire more staff or work a bit faster cause one plane or helo per update is not gonna cut it in the end.

 

You're an expert Black Shark pilot now? You can persecute targets without thinking, start from ramp at night, blindfolded, by touch alone, you can

?

 

I'm sure there's plenty still left for you to do in LockOn and BlackShark and certainly in A-10C for years to come if you really tried at it. :smilewink:

[sylkhan]

That said, yes, the vision includes more than "just" aircraft.

 

Oh, what a bad vision..

[theGozr]

Milene

"At the rate things are going right now.... the engine will be outdated reaching module 3 or 4

 

They either need to hire more staff or work a bit faster cause one plane or helo per update is not gonna cut it in the end."

 

 

True! ;) LOL

[Dimebag]

I have felt that myself, however if they continue to enable the core aircraft systems to be easily imported into future updated engines then it might not be a problem. What they really need to do is slowly add each aircraft to the engine along with the Previous, abandoning old engines as they go, as they will hold them back trying to make them compatible with each other. They need to somehow make the next DCS extremely compatible with "add on" aircraft, so previous DCS aircraft can just be "uploaded" into the new engine. Basically the aircraft needs to be stand alone, and it makes sense to do this with the terrain, and even the mission generator system, so an old one can merely be "replaced" with a new better one. Modular is what I am trying to get at. This would allow longevity and compatibility of previous aircraft and features with current engines. But then I have no idea how hard this would be to achieve, I am guessing extremely hard, and would require a complete rewrite of the engine, aircraft systems, mission system, and terrain system.

[GGTharos]

The same engine that keeps being updated with every module? I know, I know, you didn't notice ;)

 

At the rate things are going right now.... the engine will be outdated reaching module 3 or 4 :(

[Dimebag]

The same engine that keeps being updated with every module? I know, I know, you didn't notice ;)

 

Good point GGTharos, however, I wonder how easy it will be to bring KA-50 up to warthog standards? If they went down a modular route where aircraft are installed into the main game, I would imagine the process would be much easier, especially when large changes are made. Also it would allow a much nicer integration of the DCS series into a single executable, rather than having separate ones for KA-50 and A-10c for single and multiplayer. God help my poor desktop when the next DCS fighter is released, that would be 6 icons for DCS sims alone, when we could just have one.

[GGTharos]

I think you're over-thinking it a little. Whatever way they do it, the result is the same: Integration into a new engine needs to happen. That part will be as easy/hard as it happens to be regardless of which way of doing it you will choose. Or alternatively, I suppose you could just neglect having the older aircraft take advantage of newer technologies.

[ZQuickSilverZ]

I agree about having all the icons. You could create a DCS folder just for this game (DCS, FC 2, Track IR, TeamSpeak, and Game Commander is what I have in mine). After about the fourth module though its going to start getting crowded in there.

 

I would like some sort of launcher for all the DCS titles.

[sobek]

At the rate things are going right now.... the engine will be outdated reaching module 3 or 4 :(

 

Oh really? Was Black Shark outdated when it came out? Was the A-10 outdated when it came out? Do you have any idea of what's in store? ;)

 

They either need to hire more staff or work a bit faster cause one plane or helo per update is not gonna cut it in the end.

 

And that is based on what? Current procedings tell me they are doing just fine. :)

[Frostiken]

Good point GGTharos, however, I wonder how easy it will be to bring KA-50 up to warthog standards? If they went down a modular route where aircraft are installed into the main game, I would imagine the process would be much easier, especially when large changes are made. Also it would allow a much nicer integration of the DCS series into a single executable, rather than having separate ones for KA-50 and A-10c for single and multiplayer. God help my poor desktop when the next DCS fighter is released, that would be 6 icons for DCS sims alone, when we could just have one.

 

More to the point, LOMAC, KA-50, and DCS: A-10 take up a combined 22GB of space. The next module could tack another 7GB on.

 

I would venture to say that like 85% of that is completely redundant (art and sound consume the most space, and since nearly all assets are shared in some fashion between all three modules, an F-15C, is an F-15C, is an F-15C, so why should I need three different programs that all have their own (yet similar) F-15C model, texture, sounds, and code?

[EtherealN]

22+7=29.

 

Price for this storage on mechanical performance drive: 2 dollars and 32 cents.

Price for this storage on Corsair Force S3 SSD: $40

 

It does hurt a bit for SSD users, sure, but that is still storage space they can reclaim and/or rearrange anytime they choose. Point being: the gigabyte count isn't really something I would worry about personally.

 

As for why things are split up like that? Probably for the same reason the original module intent had to be dropped; the required architecture to run a merged application probably ran into severe technical hurdles and the solution was to run separate and independent programs. It might inconvenience our hard drives, but it might also allow the products to be made compatible at all as opposed to being 100% stand-alone. There is, unfortunately, a tradeoff to everything.

[theGozr]

I just hope they can all merge for a much better fun or it will have to update all .. separate is a much more work load.

 

Interesting my FSX folder is 122 GB ;) so i think we are good on that.

I think now we need real enemies now A10 is cool but who is on the enemy side.. KA50 is cool but against whom is in the other side? FC2 is fun for this but the no 3D cockpits and lack of complex FM on the main aircraft are mood killers..

SU25's are good lets important asap :)

[EtherealN]

separate is a much more work load.

 

How do you know? ;)

It's not like ED does what it does to make things as hard for themselves as possible, you know. ;)

[theGozr]

It's logical.. everything that add something is a work load.. more separate things add work load no matter what ;)

LOL

[theGozr]

Well maybe a work load can be pleasing full .. :)

Edited September 27, 2011 by theGozr

[EtherealN]

It's logical.. everything that add something is a work load.. more separate things add work load no matter what ;)

LOL

 

Logical... perhaps, but it fails to recognize what it actually entails. Splitting them up into independent products that "only" have to speak the same language for MP means that you have manageable bits to work with. Throw all of them into the same bit and any change to one tiny bit can end up having cascading effects somewhere else for a completely different aircraft. Essentially: a Q/A nightmare. You could easily end up having things go a lot slower simply because every little change has to be crosschecked against so many other things.

 

Logic is not enough to get the truth - the premises of the logical construct needs to first be established. Otherwise it's "garbage in garbage out" so to speak. :)

 

Example: Morgan is a female name. Therefore, everyone named Morgan is female. Completely logical. Except that the premise is incorrect - it's a female name in some places, male in others. Thus, while the logic itself is sound and correct, it led to a false conclusion. ;)

[Frostiken]

Essentially: a Q/A nightmare. You could easily end up having things go a lot slower simply because every little change has to be crosschecked against so many other things.

 

Versus, say, totally different patches to bring older versions up to par, which are, may I point out, nowhere to be seen because it's taking so long to create totally different updates?

 

22+7=29.

 

Price for this storage on mechanical performance drive: 2 dollars and 32 cents.

Price for this storage on Corsair Force S3 SSD: $40

 

It does hurt a bit for SSD users, sure, but that is still storage space they can reclaim and/or rearrange anytime they choose.

 

Yes it hurts SSD more, as well as people who are using drives faster than 7.2k RPM. And it's waste, and waste should always be avoided. Wasteful code, wasteful resources. Going the FSX route of aircraft add-ins is frankly the only way to go from here on.

Edited September 27, 2011 by Frostiken

[GGTharos]

That would imply that you have information which you do not :)